IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 36667 of 2007(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. T.S.SWAMINATHAN, THERANGODE HOUSE, EZHAKKAD POST, KONGAD, PALAKKAD. 2. T.S.JAYAKRISHNAN, THERANGODE HOUSE, EZHAKKAD POST, KONGAD, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALAKKAD SOUTH. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALAKKAD SOUTH. 4. H.D.F.C.BANK, PALAKKAD BRANCH, REP. BY MANAGER, N.H.BYE PASS, CHANDRA NAGAR, PALAKKAD. 5. H.D.F.C.BANK, ERNAKULAM, REP. BY RECOVERY MANAGER, SRI.RAJESH. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BENJAMIN PAUL, ADV. SRI.P.PAULOCHAN ANTONY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.36667/2007-M: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE INJUNCTION ORDER ISSUED BY MUNSIFF'S COURT, PALAKKAD. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REQUEST DTD. 06/12/2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.36667 OF 2007-M -------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J: The petitioners are tourist operators. They have purchased five vehicles availing a loan from respondents 4 and 5. It appears that the petitioners have defaulted to pay the instalments due to respondents 4 and 5 in time. So, they took steps to seize the vehicles. In the above background, the petitioners moved the civil court and obtained Ext.P1 interim order restraining respondents 4 and 5 from taking re-possession of vehicles using force. But, violating the said injunction order, respondents 4 and 5 are sending their muscle men calling them as recovery officers for threatening and harassing the petitioners. Therefore, they filed Ext.P2 representation before the police and thereafter this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. “i. To issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate and effective protection to the life of the petitioners and restrain the respondents 4 and 5 and their henchmen from harassing the WPC.NO.36667/07 . 2 petitioners; ii. To issue another mandamus or such other order or direction, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner's seeking protection from respondents 4 and 5 and their henchmen”. 2. Respondents 4 and 5 have filed a counter affidavit in which it is submitted that Ext.P1 order has been modified by the civil court by passing the following order: “The counsel for the petitioner undertake to pay the balance amount on 30.11.2007 by 10.1.2008. Hence, the petitioner is directed to pay that amount by 10.1.08. Injunction extended till 10.1.2008.” Without disclosing the above order and to get over the condition imposed as per the said order, the petitioners have approached this court by suppressing the modification of Ext.P1, it is submitted. The learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 further submitted that the said respondents have no intention to violate the injunction order of the civil court. As along as the interim order is in force, they will respect it, it is submitted. WPC.NO.36667/07 . 3 Having regard to the facts of the case, we feel that it is not necessary for this Court to pass an order in favour of the writ petitioners. If the injunction order is violated by respondents 4 and 5 directly or through others, they have remedies before the civil court. Recording the submission of the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 that they will respect the order of the civil court as long as it remains in force, the writ petition is disposed of. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR , JUDGE P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. cl