IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 7TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 28887 of 2010(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- 1. K.BHASKARAN NADAR, S/O.KUMARAN NADAR, AGED 65 YEARS, KIZHAKKARIKATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, PUNNAVILA, PULIMKUDI, MULLOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ANANDA LEELA, W/O.K.BHASKARAN NADAR, AGED 60 YEARS, KIZHAKKARIKATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, PUNNAVILA, PULIMKUDI, MULLOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 3. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 5. SREELEKHA, D/O.OMANA, KINATTADI HOUSE, MANVILA, KULATHOOR P.O.-695 583, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. MOHANAN,, B/O.SURESH BABU, KINATTINKARA VEEDU, MANVILA, KULATHOOR P.O.-695 583, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.K. V IPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 28887 of 2010(I) -2- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 1829/1976 OF VENGANNOOR SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE. EXT.P2: COPY OF O.S.NO.901/10 EXT.P3: COPY OF THE I.A. NO. 6699/2010 EXT.P4: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 11.09.2010. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED UNDER ORDER XXVI RULE 9 CPC EXT.P6(a):COPY OF PETITION TO APPOINT AN ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn THOTTATHIL.B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ WP(C) No.28887 of 2010-I ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dated 29th September 2010 Judgment Thottathil.B.Radhakrishnan, J. The petitioners filed a civil suit and obtained an ex parte ad interim order of temporary prohibitory injunction. The fifth respondent is their daughter-in-law and the sixth respondent is one of the relatives of the fifth respondent, it is stated. While the petitioners allege that they have been thrown out of possession of the building in question and have also filed certain complaints before the police, the learned Government Pleader submits, upon instruction, that the fifth respondent, her infant and also her mother, are residing in the building in question. 2. We are clear in our mind that the writ court is not to resolve the disputed questions of fact, which emanate in this situation. The petitioners say that certain applications have been filed before the civil court, even on the allegation of violation of the injunction order. It is for the WPC No.28887/10 2 petitioners to get appropriate orders from the civil court. All that the police have to do is to ensure that there is no breach of peace and that law and order is maintained. It will also be ensured that the petitioners as also the fifth respondent, her mother and child are provided with adequate protection for life. However, this direction shall not be permitted to be utilised for any encroachment by any of the parties concerned. We issue this clarification because the reliefs sought for in the Writ Petition are so couched whereby direction is sought for police protection to life to enter the building. Such right, if any, would stand governed by any direction that would be issued by the civil court in accordance with law. The Writ petition is so ordered. THOTTATHIL.B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta WPC No.28887/10 3 WPC No.28887/10 4