IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2009 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 34920 of 2008(F) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED / / IN IA.378/2008 IN OS.96/2008 of MUNI-MAGI.COURT, PERAMBARA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.SASEENDRAN, MUTHALAVEETTIL, KAYANNA,CHERUKAD, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SMT.SREEKALA KRISHNADAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SANKARAN NAIR KUNTHOLI MEETHAL HOUSE, KAYANNA, CHERUKAD, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE. 2. C.G.RAJAN, KARAYAT MEETHAL HOUSE KAYANNA, CHERUKAD, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2009, THE COURT ON 19/06/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C)No.34920 of 2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF THE SALE DEED REGISTERED AS DOC.NO.1051/1999 EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.96 OF 2008 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, PERAMBRA. EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF THE INJUNCTION APPLICATION. EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PERAMBRA. EXHIBIT P5: COPY OF THE I.A.NO.378 OF 2008 SEEKING POLICE PROTECTION. EXHIBIT P6: ORDER IN I.A.NO.378 OF 2008. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE vgd S.SIRI JAGAN ----------------------------- WP(C) No.34920 of 2008 F ----------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.96 of 2008 pending before the Munsiff's Court, Perambra. The suit is one for injunction against the 1st respondent from trespassing into or interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of 1.50 Acres of land in Re.S.No.28/1 obtained by him as per Sale Deed No.1051/1999 of Kurachoondu Sub Registrar's Office from the 1st respondent. The petitioner's contention in the suit was that despite the sale, the 1st respondent wanted the petitioner to re-convey the property to the 1st respondent for the same consideration mentioned in the Sale Deed. Petitioner was not inclined to do the same. The 1st respondent therefore started to trespass into the property. It is under the above circumstances the petitioner filed the suit. In the suit the Munsiff's Court granted an interim injunction restraining the 1st respondent and his men from trespassing into the property belonging to the petitioner. But even after the said order, the 2nd respondent threatened the petitioner, who was plucking coconuts from the property and the petitioner was made to run away from the property abandoning the coconut for fear of his life. In the W.P.(C)No.34920 of 2008 2 above circumstances the petitioner filed I.A.No.378 of 2008 before the Munsiff's Court seeking police protection to enforce the injunction order. By Ext.P6 order that petition was rejected on the ground that police protection can be granted only to enforce the injunction order against the defendant and his men and police protection cannot be ordered against the 2nd respondent, who is a third party to the suit. Petitioner is challenging that order. 2. The primary ground on which the petitioner is challenging P6 order is that the 2nd respondent is a person who has threatened the petitioner at the instance of the 1st Respondent who was the defendant in the suit. The injunction order is not merely against the 1st respondent but also against his men. Since the 2nd respondent is a person acting at the behest of the 1st respondent, the Court should grant police protection to the petitioner against the action of the 2nd respondent in violating the injunction order is the contention of the petitioner. 3. The counsel for the respondents is not present today. I have considered the contentions of the petitioner. Ext. P5 is the affidavit filed by the petitioner in the I.A in which the impugned order was passed. On going through the same I find that there is no allegation therein to the effect that the 2nd respondent is acting at the behest of the 1st respondent. W.P.(C)No.34920 of 2008 3 When such an averment is absent in the I.A, the Munsiff's Court could not have granted police protection against the 2nd respondent for violation of the injunction order which is only against the 1st respondent and his men. Therefore I do not find any infirmity in Ext.P6 order. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. However I make it clear that it would be open to the petitioner either to file a fresh I.A. before the Munsiff's Court with proper averments or to invoke the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the police to give police protection to the petitioner against the respondents. S.SIRI JAGAN JUDGE vgd