IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1930 W.P(C).No. 28850 of 2008(H) ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.1670/2007 IN O.S.84/2007 OF MUNSIFF COURT, KOTTARAKKARA . .................... PETITIONER : ------------------ BADARUDEEN, PUTHUVILA VEEDU, (NOW MANEKSHA MANZIL), MULAYARAKONAM, NILAMEL VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ RESPONDENTS : ------------------------ 1. MANSOORUDEEN, MANSOORMANZIL, BANGALAMKUNNIL, MULAYARAKONAM, NILAMEAL VILLAGE. 2. S.I. OF POLICE, KADAKAL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------- W.P(c) No. 28850 of 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No.84 of 2007 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Kottarakara. It is submitted that the suit was for a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction as the defendant obstructed cutting and removing of the Manjiam trees from the schedule property. The court passed Exhibit P1 order granting injunction on the following lines. “And whereas the court having heard the counsel for the plaintiff / petitioner and passed an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and from making any obstruction to the plaintiff in taking yields from the plaint schedule property or from committing any waste or mischief in the plaint schedule. But it is made clear that this exparte order of injunction is not a license for cutting any trees in the W.P(c) No. 28850/2008 2 disputed portion or putting up a new boundary.” 2. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite granting of injunction, the defendant resisted the cutting and removing of the Manjiam trees and therefore he sought appropriate orders by filing I.A. No.1670 of 2007 in the suit and the court below vide Exhibit P3 impugned order did not grant any police protection as prayed for, but directed the petitioner/plaintiff that if there is any violation, he can file application under Order 39 Rule 2 A of C.P.C. It can be seen from Exhibit P1, that the injunction granted was for restraining the defendant from trespassing into the schedule property and from making any obstruction to the plaintiff in taking yield from the schedule property or from committing any waste or mischief in the plaint schedule property. According to counsel for petitioner this injunction enables him to cut and remove the Manjiam trees in the schedule property as that is one of the manner of enjoyment of the schedule property by taking yield. I fail to agree with the arguments so advanced. However, in the second limb of Exhibit P1 order, it has been made clear that the exparte order of injunction is not a licence for W.P(c) No. 28850/2008 3 cutting any trees in the disputed portion or putting up a new boundary. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, disputed portion is not a portion of the scheduled property. While appreciating the first limb, he says that injunction was enabling him to cut and remove the trees, and that is one of the methods of enjoyment of the property. At the next breath, he says that cutting and removing of trees are not from the schedule property. If that is so, no relief can be granted from the trial court in the suit as relief can be granted in relation to the schedule property only. No police protection can be granted to enable the cutting of the trees either from the schedule property or from any other property. This writ petition is ill-conceived and it is dismissed. K.P. BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE scm