IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 / 10TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 23836 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ VELAYUDHAN PILLAI @ BABU, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNA PILLAI, KARAKKATTU VEEDU, CHIRAKKADAVOM, KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHANAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KAYAMKULAM. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAYAMKULAM. 4. VIJAYA KRISHNAN KUNJU, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNA PILLAI, KARAKKATTU VEEDU, CHIRAKKADAVOM, KAYAMKULAM. 5. SUBHASH, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNA PILLAI, PAPPADIYIL VEEDU, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE. BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SHRI BENJAMIN PAUL FOR R1 TO R3 ADV. SRI.K.HARILAL FOR R4-5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C)No.23836/08 PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.No.160/08 DATED 28.3.2008. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE UNDER KERALA SHOPS AND ESTABLISHMENTS ACT, 1960 ISSUED BY THE ASST. LABOUR OFFICER, KAYAMKULAM FOR THE PERIOD 1995 TO 2008. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT AND MAHAZAR IN O.S.No. 160/08. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.No.841/08 IN O.S.No. 160/08. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SENT TO THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAYAMKULAM. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHY SHOWING THE DESTRUCTION OF PORTION OF THE ROOF OF THE HOTEL. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLIANT. RESPONDENTS' EXTS: EXT.R5(a): TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.1141/01 DATED 14.5.08 OF KAYAMKULAM SRO. EXT.R5(b): TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COUNTER CLIAM FOR A MANDATORY INJUNCTION TO DEMOLISH C SCHEDULE IN O.S.No. 160/08 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KAYAMKULAM. EXT.R5(c): TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT AND SKETCH IN I.A.No.1163/08 IN O.S.No.160/08 SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER POOJA NAIR. TRUE COPY K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.23836 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner got 36 cents of land in a family partition. The said property abuts a public road on the western side. On that side, there is a building which houses the tea shop run by the petitioner. The back portion of that building is used by him for his residential purpose. The respondents 4 and 5 are the brothers of the petitioner. In the family partition, they have been given a right of way to their respective plots from the adjacent road. They claim that a portion of the petitioner's building stands in that pathway. So, they want the petitioner to demolish that portion of the building. According to the petitioner, his building stands in the property allotted to him only. Apprehending that the respondents 4 and 5 may demolish a portion of the building to enforce their claim, the petitioner moved the civil court and obtained Exhibit P4 ad interim order of injunction restraining them from causing any damage to the building so as to widen the existing pathway. The petitioner submits, in violation of the injunction order, on 20.7.2008, they demolished a portion of the roof of the building. The same is clear from Exhibit P6 photograph. Immediately, the petitioner moved the civil court for prosecuting the aforementioned respondents for violation of the injunction W.P.(C)No.23836/08 -2- order. While so, on the night of 1.8.2008, the party respondents and their men came to his door steps, knocked and threatened to physically harm him for pursuing the civil suit against them. The employees of the hotel came running and thereupon, they made their escape. Next day, the petitioner filed various representations before various authorities including Exhibit P7 before the Sub Inspector of Police. Alleging that no action has been taken on them, this Writ Petition is filed. 2. The learned Government Pleader upon instructions submitted that respondents 4 and 5 were called to the Police Station and strictly warned. The 5th respondent filed a counter affidavit denying all the allegations of the petitioner. 3. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. It is submitted on behalf of respondents 4 and 5 that they have no intention whatsoever to physically threaten or harm the petitioner. This submission is recorded. For the alleged violation of the injunction order, the petitioner may pursue his remedies before the civil court. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn