IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2008 / 26TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 5269 of 2005(B) ------------------------- OS.69/1996 of MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR .................... PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. KUNHIPATHU GURUKKATHIAR, W/O. AHAMMED @ BAVA GURUKKAL, CHANGAMPALLI KIZHAKKUMPAT, NADUVATTOM, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. AHAMMEDKUTTY @ BAVA GURUKKAL, CHANGAMPALLI KIZHAKKUMPAT, NADUVATTOM, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. UMMER GURUKKAL, S/O. MUHAMMED @ BAPPU GURUKKAL, CHANGAMPALLI KIZHAKKUMPAT, NADUVATTOM, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. MAMMUKUTTY GURUKKAL, S/O. MUHAMMED @ BAPPU GURUKKAL, CHANGAMPALLI, KIZHAKKUMPADAM, NADUVATTOM, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE SRI.ANIMON A. JOHN SRI.G.ASHOK KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: I.A.No.15737/2005 in W.P.(C) No.5269/2005 Dismissed. 16th January, 2007 Sd/-Pius Kuriakose, Judge. mn. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- P1: True copy of the report of the Commissioner dated 6-9-2002 P2: True copy of the report filed by the Commissioner on 5-8-2003 P3: True copy of the objection filed by the 2nd defendant on 14-8-2005 P4: True copy of the affidavit filed by the respondents dt. 25-10-2004 P5 True copy of the judgment of this Honourable Court in W.P.C.No.31460/2003 dated 30-9-2004 P6: True copy of the proceedings paper of the court below in O.S.no.69/96 dated 2-12-2004 Pius C. Kuriakose, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 5269 of 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of January,2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners are wife and husband and the 1st respondent is the brother of the 2nd petitioner. This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the court below to pass orders giving necessary police protection for the 2nd petitioner to be present in the plaint B schedule property at the time of inspection of the Commissioner and also to the Commissioner for properly executing the warrant. The 1st respondent has filed before the court below an affidavit wherein it is stated that he will not cause any obstructions in the matter of the Commissioner executing the warrant or in the matter of petitioners being present during the inspection by the Commissioner. Ext.P4 affidavit has been filed after this Court passed Ext.P5 judgment. Under Ext.P5 judgment this Court has directed the court below to issue necessary police protection to the Commissioner and also to permit the 2nd petitioner, husband of the 1st petitioner also to be present during the inspection of the property by the Commissioner. In the light of Ext.P5 judgment the 1st respondent is not entitled to resist the prayer for police protection. WPC 5269/2005 2 2. Accordingly, I dispose of the writ petition directing the court below to favourably consider any application which may be filed by the writ petitioners seeking police protection in the matter of execution of the commission work, if the commission work is not yet fully executed. If any such application is filed by the writ petitioners, the same shall be considered by the court below within six weeks from today. The court below will consider the application favourably in the light of Ext.P5 judgment. Pius C. Kuriakose, Judge. mn.