IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2011 / 28TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 12474 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.L. CHELLAMMA, VENGALATHUMADAM, KUROOR, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.VINOD BHAT RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTHAMANGALAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOCHI CITY, ERNAKULAM. 3. GANESHAN, S/O.PONNUMANI ACHARI, PUTHENPURA, MATHIRAPPILLY, KOTHAMANGALAM. 4. KUNJU, S/O. KOCHUKURU, KANNEDATHU, MATHIRAPPALLY, KOTHAMANGALAM. 5. YACOB, S/O. PAILY, PARANAMOLEL, MATHIRAPPALLY, KOTHAMANGALAM. 6. VARGHESE, S/O. PAILY, PARANMOLEL, MATHIRAPPALLY, KOTHAMANGALAM. 7. BABY, S/O. KURIAKOSE, PALLATHU HOUSE, MATHIRAPPALLY, KOTHAMANGALAM. 8. SCARIA.O.M, ORAMADATHIL, MATHIRAPPALLY, KOTHAMANGALAM. ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM FOR R3,5,7,8 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPIN DAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No. 12474 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, who is the owner of an item of property with the building, seeking police protection for preservation of her property. The allegation is that respondents 3 to 8 attempted to demolish the compound wall which compounds the property. The petitioner has obtained Ext.P1 decree of permanent prohibitory injunction. To Ext.P1, respondents 3 to 7 are parties. The 8th respondent is not a party. 2. Even though this writ petition was filed way back in 2009, this court never became inclined to pass an interim order. This was probably because of the stand taken by the party respondents. Their stand is that they have no intention to demolish the compound wall, which bounds the property of the petitioner, which is subject matter of Ext.P1 decree. 3. Today also Dr.George Abraham learned counsel for WPC.No.12474/2009 2 respondents 3,5,7 and 8 submitted before us that his clients do not have any intention whatsoever to demolish the compound wall. In fact, his submission was that the very fact that the compound wall in question was able to stand all these years even in the absence of interim order will show that the allegation levelled in the writ petition against the party respondents are without basis. We record the above submission addressed before us by Dr.George Abraham and dispose of this writ petition taking the view that issuance of directions sought for is unnecessary in view of the assurance and undertaken given to this court. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE. dpk