IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2008 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 17056 of 2008(E) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. ANANDAVALLY AMMA, ANANDAVILASOM, PANGAPPARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SAROJAM, D/O.ANANDAVALLY AMMA, ANANDAVILASOM, PANGAPPARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN SMT.M.HEMALATHA SRI.R.S.MADHU SRI.MAHESH ANANDAKUTTAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. DAMODHARAN PODIYAN, KOCHUVEETTUVILAKOM, MANVILA PUTHIYIDOM, PANGAPPARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. BHARATHAN, VALIYAPUTHIUDATHIL, MANVILA PUTHIYIDOM, PANGAPPARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SREEKARIYAM POLICE STATION, SREEKARIYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SREEKANTH S.NAIR FOR R1 GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 17056/08 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.8.1997. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 8.10.03. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.7.2005. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.1.2008. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED 30.1.2008. RESPONDENTS' EXTS. EXT.R1(a) – TRUE COPY OF E.A.826/2004. EXT.R1(b) – TRUE COPY OF COMMISSION APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 27.2.2006. EXT.R1(c) – TRUE COPY OF COMMISSION REPORT DATED 16.10.06. EXT.R1(d) – TRUE COPY OF E.A. 1159/07 DATED 22.11.2007 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS. EXT.R1(e) – TRUE COPY OF E.A.1237/07 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 17056 OF 2008-E ----------------------------------------- Dated 19th June, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioners are the decree holders in O.S.No.1968/1996 before the IIIrd Additional Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The said suit was decreed, restraining the defendants therein permanently from trespassing into the plaint schedule property or destroying its boundaries or constructing a new road through the said property. In the said decree, the petitioners preferred E.P.No.7/2001. The same was allowed by Ext.P2 order and the judgment debtors were directed to restore the boundary of the plaint schedule property to its original position within 30 days, failing which punitive action was to be taken. The decree holders were also given liberty to restore the boundary wall to its original position, at the risk and cost of the judgment debtors. The judgment debtors challenged that order before this Court by filing C.R.P.No.289/2005. The said revision petition was disposed of, vacating the direction regarding punitive action, but affirming WPC 17056/2008 2 the remaining directions. Thereafter, the petitioners filed E.A.No.1237/2007 in the above E.P., seeking police assistance to restore the boundary wall. The said E.A was allowed, directing the Sub Inspector of Police, Sreekaryam to render necessary assistance to the decree holders. The said order is produced as Ext.P4 in this writ petition. The petitioners submit, claiming police assistance, on the strength of Ext.P4, they have filed a petition before the S.I of Police, Sreekaryam. The same is evident from Ext.P5 receipt. Since the S.I of Police did not take any steps to render necessary assistance, this Writ Petition is filed, seeking appropriate reliefs. 2. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that though a representation from the 1st petitioner was received, she did not specify the date and time when the police should extend protection. It is also submitted that if the date and time are informed to the police, they will render necessary protection to the petitioners. 3. We also heard the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. The said respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit, opposing the prayers in the Writ Petition. According to him, in the E.P there was no prayer for restoring the compound wall and therefore, the directions issued by the execution court are unsustainable in law. But, as long as Ext.P4 is remaining in force, the Sub Inspector of Police is bound to act in accordance WPC 17056/2008 3 with the directions contained therein. The S.I has no authority or jurisdiction to go behind Ext.P4, taking into account the objections of the judgment debtors. Therefore, the objection raised by the 1st respondent is plainly unsustainable. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. If the petitioners inform the 3rd respondent regarding the date and time when they propose to restore the compound wall, the said respondent shall render necessary protection to them. If respondents 1 and 2 have any grievance against Ext.P4, they may work out their remedies against it. This direction to grant police protection will be subject to any orders that may be passed by the competent court in a proceeding challenging Ext.P4. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. Nm/