IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2011 / 28TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1599 of 2011(Y) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- THOMAS PHILIPOSE, S/O. P.P.PHILIPOSE, AGED 76 YEARS, KUMBANAD-KADAPRA.P.O., KOIPURAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.PRAKASH RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOIPURAM POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 531. 3. ASHOK KUMAR.T.Y. VALLIAKALAYIL HOUSE, S/O. DAMODARAN NAIR, KADAPRA MURI, KOIPURAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK-689 531. 4. REMA ASHOK KUMAR, W/O. T.ASHOK KUMAR, VALLIAKALAYIL HOUSE, KADAPRA MURI, KOIPRAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK-689 531. 5. THOMAS THOMAS, S/O. THOMAS, THAZUMBALA HOUSE, KADAPRA MURI, KOIPURAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK-689 531. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.K.VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 1599 of 2011-Y ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner - a senior citizen, has come to this Court with this petition under Art.226 of the Constitution for issue of appropriate directions to respondents 1 and 2 to afford police protection to him. 2. What is the dispute? The petitioner claims to have purchased two items of properties under Exts.P1 and P2. As access to the properties purchased under Exts.P1 and 2, the son of the petitioner, who is not a party to this proceeding, has purchased Ext.P3 property. Regarding the use and enjoyment of Ext.P3 property, there is a dispute between the owner of Ext.P3 property and respondents 3 to 5. Respondents 3 to 5, it appears, claim a right of pathway through Ext.P3 property. The W.P.(C) No. 1599 of 2011 -: 2 :- 3rd respondent is already before the civil court for resolution of that dispute. The petitioner's son is not available in India and claiming that the petitioner is acting on his behalf, the petitioner has been arrayed as a party to that suit. The civil court has already passed interim directions in the matter. An order to maintain status quo, it is stated, has been passed by the civil court. 3. The crux of the grievance of the petitioner is that respondents 3 to 5 are acting contrary to the said order directing maintenance of status quo. The status quo was that the petitioner was using Ext.P3 property. The petitioner is not permitted by respondents 3 to 5 now to enter and use that property. It is on this aspect that direction for police protection is sought. 4. The civil court is seized to the matter. The order to maintain status quo has already been passed. If either party has a grievance that the said order to maintain status quo is not being observed scrupulously, such party must seek appropriate further directions from the civil court which passed the order. They cannot run to the police officer and request the police officer to interpret the interim order and grant relief. Specific directions will have to be sought from the civil court concerned which passed the order to maintain status quo. W.P.(C) No. 1599 of 2011 -: 3 :- 5. We are not, in these circumstances, satisfied that any directions under Art.226 need be issued to respondents 1 and 2. With the observation that the parties must approach the civil court which passed the order directing maintenance of status quo in case there is any dispute regarding what the status quo was and how the order has to be interpreted, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge