IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 8TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 29093 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SAHADEVAN, KOCHUVEETIL, BUILDING NO.888, WARD NO.X, MARUTHOORKULANGARA SOUTH, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 2. RAJEEVAN, OF DO, DO. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 4. SUMATHY, KONOORKARAN VEEDU, HERBERT NAGAR, NEDUMPUZHA P.O., THRISSUR. 5. RAVI, VAYALILTHARAYIL VEEDU, MYNAGAPPALLY NORTH, MYNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE, MYNAGAPPALLY POST, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.A.SALIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 29093 OF 2008-L ----------------------------------------- Dated 30th September, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. This is not a writ petition for police protection, but an original suit for police protection, which this Court is not empowered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to hear and decide. A writ petition under Article 226, for police protection, can be filed to remedy the failure of duty from the part of the police. In this case, the petitioners and the 4th respondent claim possession and title over a parcel of land. The suit filed by the petitioners has been dismissed and that of the 4th respondent has been decreed. The trial court has declared that the 4th respondent is having title and possession over the plaint schedule property and the petitioners were restrained by issuing a permanent prohibitory injunction from interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of that property by the 4th respondent. We notice that the WPC 29093/08 2 suit filed by the petitioners was dismissed on merits. But, they claim, it is a dismissal for default and they further claim, an application for restoration of that suit is pending. The petitioners further point out that the suit filed by the 4th respondent was one for recovery of possession and therefore, admittedly, she is not in possession. Now, after the passing of the decree in her favour, the 4th respondent is trying to take the property by force, it is submitted. 2. But, when there is a decree of the competent court declaring the 4th respondent's title and possession over the plaint schedule property, the police cannot peruse the pleadings of the parties before the court, find that the 4th respondent is not in possession and further find that the petitioners are in possession and come to their help. Until Ext.P4 judgment is avoided in appropriate proceedings, every one is bound by that. The police have no business, whatsoever, to assist the petitioners to flout the mandatory injunction order issued in favour of the 4th respondent. So, the representation filed before the police, seeking protection against the alleged forceful entry of the 4th respondent and others into the plaint schedule property is plainly WPC 29093/08 3 untenable. The police cannot take any action on that representation. So, they have not failed to discharge any statutory duty. Therefore, this Court cannot issue any writ of mandamus against the police. In fact, this writ petition is an abuse of the process of this Court and it is accordingly dismissed. But, it is clarified that this judgment will not affect the contentions of the petitioners before the civil court. The civil court concerned shall hear and decide the case of the petitioners without being influenced by anything said in this judgment. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. Nm/