IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2008 / 18TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 33033 of 2007(G) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. THAIVALAPPIL CHEMARATHI, W/O. KUNHIRAMAN (LATE), KANDOTH, P.O.KANDOTH, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. THAIVALAPPIL PARU, D/O. LATE KUNHACHA AMMA, PAYYANNUR AMSOM, MAVICHERRY DESOM, P.O.PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ SRI.PRATHAPAN K.P. RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANNUR. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAYYANNUR. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAYYANNUR. WPC 33033/2007 6. SURA, S/O. NADAVALAPPIL RAGHAVAN MASTER, VELLOOR AMSOM, KANDOTH VIA., PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.A.SALIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 33033/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.10.2003 IN O.S.NO.128/2001. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 29.10.2003 IN O.S.NO.128/2001 EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 21.8.2007 IN A.S.NO.36/2006. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.8.2007 IN I.A.478/2006 IN A.S.NO.36/2006. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 2.11.2007 TOGETHER WITH RECEIPT AND POSTAL RECEIPT. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 33033 OF 2007-G ----------------------------------------- Dated 8th January, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioners are cousins. They claim possession and ownership over a property having an extent of 59.71 cents in R.S.No.100/8B of Vellur amsom, Kandoth desom. When persons who have no right over the property tried to encroach into the same and to use it as a play ground, they moved the civil court and obtained Ext.P1 judgment and Ext.P2 decree. Since it is a suit filed under Order I Rule 8 of the C.P.C., the judgment is binding on all the members of the public. The said judgment has become final, as the appeal filed against it has also been dismissed. But, when the petitioners go to the property, they are being threatened with physical harm and injury by the 6th respondent and others and therefore, they cannot enjoy the property. So, they have preferred Ext.P5 representation before the police. When the police did not take any action, this writ petition is filed, seeking the following reliefs: Wpc 33033/07 2 “(i) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 3 and 4 to provide adequate police protection to the petitioners and other family members and their properties of 59.71 cents in R.S.No.100/8B of Vellur amsom, Kandoth desom, which is shown as B schedule in Ext.P2 decree; (ii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 3, 4 and 5 to ensure that Exts.P1 and P2 are properly implemented and not violated; (iii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.5 to take appropriate action as per Ext.P5 complaint in accordance with law by taking note of Exts.P1 and P2, which have become final and which are not so far stayed by any other court. (iv) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 3 to 5 that no public function is carried out in the property which is the subject-matter of Exts.P1 and P2.” 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader for the official respondents also. If the decree obtained by the petitioners is not respected by the persons bound by the same, their remedy is to move the executing court to execute that decree. The executing court is also competent to address the police to enforce its orders. Since this efficacious remedy is available to the petitioners, it is not proper for this Court to direct the police to help the petitioners to enforce their rights under the decree. In view of the remedy available to them under the Code of Civil Procedure and also having regard to the nature of the prayers, we think it is not proper to issue any directions to the police. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed without prejudice to Wpc 33033/07 3 the contentions of the petitioners and their right to move the competent executing court for appropriate reliefs. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Nm/