IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2011 / 14TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 34431 of 2010(D) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ T. CHANDRA BABU, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRAN UNNITHAN, HARIMANGALATHU, PARAKODE P.O., ARUKALIKKAL WEST MURI, ADOOR VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. V.M. VARGHESE, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.LATE MATHAI VARGHESE, VALIYAKALAYIL HOUSE, KUMBAZHA VADAKKU MURI, MYLAPRA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689 671. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KODUMAN POLICE STATION, PIN - 691 555. *ADDL. R3 IMPLEADED ADDL.R3: THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. *ADDL. R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 04/01/2011 IN I.A.17062/2010. R1 BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ, SRI.SAJJU.S. R2 & ADDL. R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.CHARISHMA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C) NO. 34431/2010-D APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE LICENSE DATED 01/07/2010. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE O.S.292/2010 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE INJUNCTION PETITION. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE INTERIM INJUNCTION ORDER. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 11/11/2010 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE S.I. OF POLICE, KODUMAN POLICE STATION. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 23/11/2010 FILED BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 23/11/2010. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE DYSP DATED 25/11/2010. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 25/11/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.34431 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th January, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions to the second respondent to afford protection for his life and property. 2. The petitioner had entered into Ext.P1 agreement with the owner of 5 acres of land. That agreement relates to the license for tapping rubber trees in the 5 acres of land. According to the petitioner, he has some transactions with the first respondent and the first respondent is in possession of blank papers etc. According to the petitioner, even though there were initial suggestions about leaving the rubber trees for tapping of the first respondent, so that the financial liability to the first respondent can be reduced, such a transaction could not be entered in to return the first respondent and the petitioner in the light of the terms of Ext.P1 agreement. Therefore, there was actually no valid agreement between the petitioner and the first respondent permitting the first WPC No.34431/2010 2 respondent to tap the rubber trees in the 5 acres of land covered by Ext.P1 agreement. 3. According to the petitioner, the first respondent misusing some of the blank papers, which were available with him had concocted and created a false document to make it appear that the petitioner had permitted him to tap the rubber trees in the said five acres of land covered by Ext.P1. The first respondent had approached the civil court i.e. the Subordinate Judge, Pathanamthitta with O.S.No.292/2010. Even though he had claimed larger interim reliefs, the Sub Court Pathanamthitta had granted him only an injunction restraining the petitioner from causing damage to the rubber trees. 4. While O.S.No.292/2010 was pending, the petitioner had filed another suit as O.S.No.317/2010 before the very same Court, i.e. Sub Court, Pathanamthitta. In that, he had contended that the first respondent has no right to trespass into the property. As the first respondent had lodged a caveat, no orders were passed on such interim application. In fact suit WPC No.34431/2010 3 O.S.No.317/2010 was admittedly only subsequent to the filing of this petition. 5. The short present prayer of the petitioner is that until the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta passes orders in the interim applications filed by the contestants in the said two suits, appropriate directions may be issued to ensure that the first respondent does not trespass into the property and interfere with his possession. 6. We must remind ourselves that we are dealing with a petition for affording police protection to the petitioner. Complicated questions of fact cannot be attempted to be resolved in this proceedings, on the basis of pleadings and affidavits of the parties. Petitioner's right to tap rubber trees in 5 acres of land under Ext.P1 is conceded by the petitioner. The first respondent has produced documents (which are doubted by the petitioner as false and concocted documents) which shows that the first respondent has a right to tap those trees and appropriate the income towards the amounts payable to him by the petitioner. The civil court is already seized of WPC No.34431/2010 4 the matter and we are informed that both suits stand posted for hearing and orders in the interim applications to 15.1.2011. 7. Having rendered our anxious consideration to all the relevant inputs, we are not persuaded to agree that any directions need or deserve to be issued at this juncture. The Civil court is already seized of the matter. The parties can produce all the relevant documents before the civil court. It is submitted that the cases stood posted to yesterday, 3/1/2011 and have now been adjourned to 15.1.2011 as the court was not sitting on 3.1.2011. We deem it appropriate that the Civil Court must pass appropriate orders in the interim applications after considering all the relevant inputs placed before the Civil court. If the parties cannot wait till 15.1.2011 and want an earlier order, they must move the civil court to advance the hearing of the matter and issue appropriate interim/ad-interim directions. We are not in any view of the matter persuaded to invoke jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue any interim directions in WPC No.34431/2010 5 the matter. 8. With the observation that the parties must apprise the civil court of all the relevant contentions and materials and with the further observation that it shall be open to the parties to request the civil court to advance the hearing and pass appropriate interim/ad-interim orders, this writ petition is dismissed. Hand over copies of this judgment to both counsel. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/