IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2010 / 14TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14980 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SOJAN, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.JOHN, KOYEPARAMBIL HOUSE, VADACKAL MURI, PUNNAPRA NORTH, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JAMES RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA. 2. SANALKUMAR, CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SOUTH POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA. 3. SEBASTIAN @ SAJI, S/O.JOHN, AGED 30 YEARS, KOYEPARAMBIL HOUSE, VADACKAL MURI, PUNNAPRA NORTH, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. G.P. SHRI T K VIPINDAS FOR R1 & R2 ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 14980 of 2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE RATION CARD OF THE PETITIONER EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTION IDENTITY CARD OF THE PETITIONER EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE INJUNCTION ORDER DATED 24.4.2010 IN C.M.P. NO. 206/2010 IN CMP. NO. 203/2010 OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (VACATION COURT) ALAPPUZHA EX.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN SANCTIONING ORDER DATED 20.3.2004 OF THE KERALA STATE BACKWARD CLASSES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT MANAGER, KSBCDC DISTRICT OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL DT. 25.1.2010. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL // TRUE COPY // K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 14980 of 2010 V - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The petitioner has approached this court for the following reliefs. i) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the 2nd respondent not to harass the petitioner or to interfere in the matter which is subjudice before the civil court. ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P4 and take appropriate action against the 2nd respondent.” 2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. The petitioner and the third respondent are brothers. They along with W.P.(C).No. 14980 of 2010 2 their parents are residing in the same house. The petitioner's father wanted to obtain a loan in 2003. The third respondent made him to believe that loan will be obtained in the nature of a personal loan and the property is to be transferred in the name of the third respondent. The third respondent assured that immediately after obtaining the loan the property will be re-transferred to the name of his father. It is stated that the third respondent refused to re-transfer the property to the name of his father. He realised the fraud and initiated steps to cancel the transfer. 3. Apprehending legal action against the third respondent, he filed a false suit against the petitioner and his sister and obtained Ext.P3 interim injunction restraining the petitioner from entering into the plaint schedule property. In the meantime, the third respondent influenced the second respondent, who asked the petitioner to come to his office. The petitioner and his father went to the office of the second W.P.(C).No. 14980 of 2010 3 respondent. They were kept waiting for a long time and thereafter the second respondent asked them to quit the house within 24 hours. 4. A counter affidavit is filed. Therein, the case of the third respondent, inter alia, is that the third respondent filed Ext.R3(c) complaint on 17.4.2010 before the first respondent alleging trespass. There is also an allegation that there is threat to his life. A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as also the learned Government Pleader. 6. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the police is investigating the matter as per Ext.R3(c). 7. In the light of the said submission, we dispose of the Writ Petition. The second respondent shall not harass the petitioner on the basis of Ext.P3 interim order. However, we make it clear that it is W.P.(C).No. 14980 of 2010 4 certainly open to the second respondent to investigate Ext.R3(c) complaint in accordance with law. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm