IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 13TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 370 of 2010(U) ------------------------ PETITIONER: --------------- SHEEJA SAMUEL, AGED 27 YEARS, D/O.MERCY, VENI NIVAS, KOTTAMUKKU, CUTCHERRY WARD, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. VENKADALEKSHMI, D/O.THACHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, HOUSE NO.151, KOTTAKKAKOM NAGAR, CUTCHERRY.P.O, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM. 4. RAMACHANDRAN, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.R.SATISH KUMAR FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.C.M. KAMMAPPU FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DT. 19.3.08 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE 1ST PETITIONER AND THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF O.S. NO.29/09 ON THE FILE OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, KOLLAM. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF INJUNCTION ORDER DT. 8.1.2009 IN I.A. 95/09 IN O.S.NO. 29/09 ON THE FILE OF DO. DO. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDET DT. 17.12.2009 IN CRL.M.P.NO.3471/09 OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT. 3.1.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXTS: EXT.R1(a) TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT DT. 19.3.08 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 1ST RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 370 of 2010 U - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a direction to the second respondent to restrain respondents 3 and 4 from causing harassment to the petitioner and also to provide adequate and sufficient police protection to the life of the petitioner and her family members from respondents 1 and 3. The petitioner also sought for a direction to the second respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P5 representation filed by her. 2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. She entered into Ext.P1 agreement between the first respondent for purchasing the property of the first respondent. It is the further W.P.(C).No. 370 of 2010 2 case that the petitioner was permitted to reside in the house situated therein. Thereafter, the first respondent refused to fulfill the conditions in the agreement. The petitioner approached the civil court by filing Ext.P2 plaint and obtained Ext.P3 order of injunction restraining the first respondent from alienating the property, which order is still in force. 3. It is her case that the 4th respondent, who is specifically named, is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kollam, who is a close associate of the first respondent. He is causing threat to the petitioner to evict her forcefully from the house, violating Ext.P3 order of injunction. It is submitted that the Constable appointed by the third respondent came to the residential house on four occasions with a threat that unless the petitioner vacates the house, she would be falsely implicated in various cases. W.P.(C).No. 370 of 2010 3 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the first respondent as also the learned Government Pleader. 5. As directed by this court, a report was filed by the learned Government Pleader, in which it is inter alia reported as follows. The petitioner filed a suit before the Sub Court, Kollam as O.S.No. 29 of 2008, in which the court passed an order of temporary injunction restraining the first respondent from transferring the property to any other person. But the court did not restrain the first respondent from evicting the petitioner from the building. But the petitioner did not quit the property on the ground that she has no other building to reside. It is also stated that no case is registered against the petitioner and there is no need to arrest her. 6. Going by the materials on record, we would think that it may not be open to the police to interfere in the civil dispute between the parties or harass the petitioner on the basis of a civil dispute. It is for W.P.(C).No. 370 of 2010 4 the parties to approach the competent civil court and to work out their remedies. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm