IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH APRIL 2011 / 9TH VAISAKHA 1933 WP(C).No. 12668 of 2011(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S) :- ------------------------ BABU, AGED 41, S/O.KOVATH KOCHU GOVINDHAN, POOKODE DESOM, AMBALLOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S) :- ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARANTHARAPILLY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT – 690 001. 3. JANAKI, W/O.THALIYAKADAN AYYAPPAN, VARANTHARAPPILLY VILLAGE DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT – 690 001. 4. JAYARAMAN, S/O.JANAKI, THAIKKADAN HOUSE, VARANTHARAPPILLY VILLAGE DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT – 690 001. 5. RUGMINI, W/O.JAYARAMAN, VARANTHARAPPILLY VILLAGE DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT – 690 001. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.K.J.MOHAMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jvt THOMAS P. JOSEPH & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.12668 of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 29th day of April 2011 J U D G M E N T K. Surendra Mohan, J. This is a petition for police protection. The petitioner complains of illegal acts of obstruction and trespass by respondents 3 to 5. According to him, the 2nd respondent herein is not affording adequate police protection against the illegal acts complained of by him. He also complains that the police is not taking any action on his complaints. 2. The dispute in this case relates to 94 cents of property in the Varantharappilly Village which was purchased by the petitioner as per document No.2401 of 2009. The 3rd respondent was at one point of time the owner of the property. She had assigned the same to one Mythri Chits and Finances Private Limited as per a registered document. After the assignment it is alleged that respondents 3 to 5 trespassed into the property and therefore, a suit was filed by the said Mythri Chits and Finances W.P.(C). No.12668 of 2011 -: 2 :- Private Limited as O.S.No.242 of 2007 before the Sub court, Irinjalakuda in which a decree for recovery of possession was granted. The property was got delivered in execution of the decree through court. The 3rd respondent is alleged to have filed a petition for setting aside the said exparte decree. However the petition was dismissed. Against the dismissal of the same, CMA No.95 of 2009 is filed, which is said to be pending. The petitioner has filed O.S.No.196 of 2011 before the Munsiff Court, Irinjalakuda which is also pending. As per the interim orders in the said suit, according to the petitioner he has been permitted to take usufructs from the properties. 3. It is clear from the above that, the dispute in the above case is essentially a civil dispute. The same is pending adjudication of the competent civil court. If the petitioner has a complaint that the interim orders granted by the civil suit are being violated, it is up to the petitioner to move to the civil court for necessary consequential orders for the proper enforcement thereof. It is also open to the petitioner to seek such further orders as are necessary in the matter, including orders for police protection. The petitioner also submits that, though complaints W.P.(C). No.12668 of 2011 -: 3 :- have been made by him to the 2nd respondent, no action has been taken on his complaints. The counsel particularly relies on Ext.P6 postal acknowledgment card to submit that he had already submitted the complaint that is acknowledged receipt of therein, on which no action has been initiated. If a complaint has been submitted by the petitioner, as acknowledged by Ext.P6, the 2nd respondent shall certainly take appropriate action thereon in accordance with law provided that, he does not interfere in the civil dispute that is pending adjudication of the civil court. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. Jvt