IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2011 / 25TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 26299 of 2011(J) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ PRADEEP P.R, S/O.RAJAPPAN, AGED 43, PARACHIRA PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE VEROOR P.O.,CHETHIPUHA VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.P.HARIDAS SMT.S.SIKKY RESPONDENTS ----------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, ALAPPUZHA-688 001. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHENGANNUR-689121. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGANNUR-689121. 4. SREENIVASAN P.K, AGED ABOUT 46,S/O.KARUNAKARAN, PUTHUPARAMBIL VEETTIL,SACHIVOTHAMAPURAM P.O., KURICHY VILLAGE,CHANGANACHERRY TALUK-686532. 5. SOLOMON P.K, AGED ABOUT 42, S/O.KARUNAKARAN,PUTHUPARAMBIL VEETTIL, SACHIVOTHAMAPURAM P.O.,KURICHY VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK-686532. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. DINESH MATHEW MANJOORAN R4 & R5 BY ADV. SRI.THAMPAN THOMAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: AMG W.P (C) No.26299/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT WITH COMPROISE DATED 09-04-2010 IN O.S. No.104/2010 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHENGANNUR. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 30-09-2011 LODGED TO THE POLICE. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R4(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED DEED No.2019 OF 2004 IN THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, CHENGANNUR. EXT.R4(b) : TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN 4TH RESPONDENT AND THE PETITIONER. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE AMG PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.26299 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Pius C. Kuriakose, J. The petitioner seeks police protection in this writ petition under Article 226 for his life and properties and for his employees so that he can conduct operations in the saw mill, which is the subject matter of the writ petition, without hindrance from respondents 4 and 5. It is conceded by the petitioner himself in the writ petition that on the basis of Ext.P1 judgment recording the terms of compromise entered into between the parties, the petitioner has undertaken to surrender the saw mill building and also to remove the petitioner's cutting machine, crane and other machineries as well as timber belonging to him on or before 30.9.2011. Sri.P. Haridas, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that challenging Ext.P1 compromise decree the petitioner has already moved the Chengannur Munsiff. Whether or not the motion of the petitioner challenging Ext.P1 compromise decree should be W.P.(C).26299/11 -2- upheld, is a matter which the Munsiff is to decide. As far as this court is concerned the question is whether this court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to aid the petitioner to disobey the terms of Ext.P1, which is the compromise decree. It is very clear to our mind that the above question can be answered only in the negative. We decline the jurisdiction and dismiss the writ petition. However, we record the submissions made before us by Sri. Thampan Thomas, learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 that those respondents will not in any way obstruct the petitioner's removing timber belonging to him and the machineries referred to in clause No.4 of Ext.P1 in obedience to Ext.P1 compromise decree. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb