IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 4TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 25851 of 2008(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- G.JAYAKUMAR, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.GOPINATHAN NAIR, ADIKAVIVILAKATHU VEEDU, T.C.50/267, KALADY (SOUTH), KARAMANA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.MAHESH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUSIUM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUSIUM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DODLA INTERNATIONAL INTERPRISES PVT.LTD, HVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT 16-A CENOTAPH ROAD II STREET, CHENNAI-600 018 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, DODLA SUBRAMA REDDY, AGED 90 YEARS S/O.DODLA VARADA REDDY, RESIDING AT 15-A CENOTAPH ROAD II STREET, CHENNAI. 4. S.SHIBU, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, SHIBU MAHAL PERUMKULAM, KEEZHATTINGAL VILLAGE. 5. S.SHAJAHAN, ALSO KNOWN AS HAMEED SHAJI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, S A M VILLA, PERUMKULAM KEEZHATTINGAL VILLAGE. W.P.(C) NO.25851/2008 6. JAPHER, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED NASEE, VILLA, T.B.JN, CHITTATINKARA DESOM, ATTINGAL VILLAGE. ADV. SMT.A.K.PREETHA FOR R4 TO 6 SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R3 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R3 SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R3 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R3 SRI.ANIL D. NAIR FOR R3 SRI.R.RAJISH. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.25851/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE I.A.NO.IN 1180/08 IN O.S.NO.584/2008. EXT.P3: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.2.8.2008. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.25851 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of September, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner claims he is the power of attorney holder of Mr.Vijayakumar residing in Shencottai, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.584/2008 pending before the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The plaintiff in that suit is entitled to get 1/6th of the share of a property in survey Nos.778 and 781 of Thycaud village. But, Mr.Sattanathan, one of the legal heirs of original owner sold the property to the 3rd respondent without the junction of other legal heirs. On coming to know of the above transaction, the above said Mr.Vijayakumar has approached the Sub court, Thiruvananthapuram by filing the aforementioned suit seeking partition and recovery of possession of that property. In the suit an I.A. for interim injunction is also filed seeking to restrain the defendants 18 to 21 from making any construction in the property. The petitioner alleges, for prosecuting the above suit, he is being W.P.(C) No.25851/2008 2 threatened by the respondents 4 to 6 who are henchmen of the 3rd respondent. So, he preferred Ext.P3 petition before the Circle Inspector of Police, Museum police station seeking necessary protection to his life and property. Alleging that the police did not take any action, this writ petition was filed. 2. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the property was purchased by it from the owners of it, who were declared as such by the Sub Court, Thenkasi in O.S.No.97/1981. No one else has any claim over the property. It is also submitted that it has not so far received notice in the suit stated to have been filed by Mr. Vijayakumar. It is also stated that the 3rd respondent does not know who are the respondents 4 to 6. 3. The respondents 4 to 6 have filed a counter affidavit stating that in Ext.P2 they are described as persons who purchased 1 Acre 22 cents of land in Kadakampally village and in that petition they are not described as the henchmen of the 3rd respondent. The allegations made against them in this writ W.P.(C) No.25851/2008 3 petition are totally unfounded and they ran against the pleadings of Mr.Vijayakumar, whom the petitioner represents, in Ext.P2 application for interlocutory order. They submit that they have not threatened the petitioner and they have no intention to do that in future. 4. The cause of action for seeking police protection is the alleged threat from the part of respondents 4 to 6, who are allegedly the henchmen of the 3rd respondent. The said allegation is disproved by the petitioner's own pleadings in Ext.P2. Therefore, we notice that this writ petition is an abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly, it is dismissed with costs. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE) ps