IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2010 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6828 of 2010(C) ------------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. MARIAMMA JOHN,SHANTHI NIVAS,T.C.34/1573 (1),NEAR AIRPORT,VALLAKADAVU.PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MARY THOMAS,JACKSON HOUSE,T.C.34/1573(3) NEAR AIRPORT,VALLAKADAVU.PO,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. JULIAT AUGUSTIN,AILINE VIEW, T.C.34/1575,NEAR AIRPORT,VALLAKADAVU.PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.M.HEMALATHA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALIATHURA POLICE STATION. 4. MR.RUPESH,THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALIATHURA POLICE STATION,VALIATHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. W.P.(C).NO.6828 OF 2010 C 5. JUSTIN JOHN,S/O.SAMUEL,JOHN FELIX, HAPPY HOME,T.C.34/1564(6),JUSSA ROAD, VALLAKKADAVU.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI T.K. VIPINDAS. ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER FOR R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C).NO.6828 OF 2010 PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 1.1.2010. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.34955/09 DATED 18.2.2010. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION APPLICATION IN OS.NO.1955/09 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS; NIL. // True Copy // PS to Judge K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- W.P(C). NO. 6828 OF 2010 C --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th March, 2010 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Petitioners have approached this Court against harassment by police. Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as follows: Petitioners are in absolute possession and enjoyment of 10.174 cents of property in Survey No.1790 of of Palkulangara Village. All the petitioners have constructed buildings and they are residing in the respective houses. While so, the fifth respondent purchased 38.750 cents of property on the western side with an intention to annex a portion of the property of the petitioners. Alleging that there is a pathway through the property of the petitioners, the fifth respondent instituted a Suit as OS.No.1955 of 2009 before the Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the first petitioner and her husband from demolishing the southern boundary wall of plaint B schedule property, from WPC.NO.6828 OF 2010 C 2 annexing any portion of the plaint schedule properties and from disturbing his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties. He obtained an ex parte order of injunction. It is stated that the first petitioner and her husband filed objection and it is pending consideration. On the basis of the ex parte order of injunction, the fifth respondent is influencing the Police Authorities, namely respondents 3 and 4 and they are unnecessarily harassing the petitioners. It is stated that during December 2009, police came to the property and it became a duly routine. The fifth respondent filed W.P.(C). No.34955 of 2009 which was disposed of by Ext.P2 Judgment. Therein, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner (fifth respondent) to seek appropriate orders for enforcement of the order of injunction in accordance with law, the Writ Petition was closed. It is stated that on 26.02.2010, Ext.P3 notice was issued by the fourth respondent directing the first petitioner to be present before the police station with their vehicles and to produce documents to show that they have the right to obstruct WPC.NO.6828 OF 2010 C 3 the pathway. Petitioners filed Ext.P4 complaint. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the fifth respondent and the learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel for the fifth respondent would submit that the matter is pending consideration before the civil court and the Injunction Application has been heard and the matter is posted for orders. At present, admittedly, there is only an ex parte order. At any rate, the Police Officers, namely respondents 3 and 4 cannot interfere in the civil dispute between the petitioners and the fifth respondent. Learned Government Pleader would submit that there was an ex parte order of injunction and since there is an allegation of violation of the ex parte order of injunction, Crime No.135 of 2010 of Valiyathura Police Station is registered. In such circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: We are not pronouncing on the merits of the contentions on the part of the petitioners on the one hand and the fifth respondent on the other hand, which is pending consideration before the civil court and the civil court will necessarily pass orders on the basis of the materials produced and the law on the WPC.NO.6828 OF 2010 C 4 point. Respondents 3 and 4 shall not interfere in the dispute between the petitioner and the fifth respondent, as things stand. There is no order for police protection by the civil court as of now. At the same time, we make it clear that this Judgment will not stand in the way of the investigation of Crime No.135 of 2010 of Valiyathura Police Station. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge