IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2011 / 16TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 11051 of 2011(F) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ V.VINOD, S/O.PRABHAKARAN PILLAI,AGED 45 GEETHA NIVAS (VALIYAVEETTIL) KATHIKKUDAM, KAKKADU, KALLOOR, MUKUNDAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.VINOD RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KORATTY POLICE STATION. THRISSUR DIST. - 680308 2. RAJU, S/O.THOMAS THEKKEVALIYARA HOUSE, KOVILAVATTOM DESOM ERNAKULAM VILLAGE -682025 3. M.M.JAYAKUMAR, S/O. MADHAVAN MANIYANANIKKAL, EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE ERNAKULAM -682024 SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 11051 of 2011(F) -2- APPENDIX PETITIONER's EXTS EXT.P1:- THE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 14/05/08 EXT.P2:- THE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT SEEKING POLICE PROTECTION. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.11051 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner asked for further time for furnishing the address of respondents 2 and 5, we are not inclined to grant any further time as we notice that time was granted on several occasions. 2. This is a Writ Petition seeking protection for life and properties of the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that as regards the properties claimed by the petitioner they have executed a document in favour of the party respondents. According to them document is executed not to convey title upon the party respondents but by way of security for the loan which W. P. C. No.11051 of 2011 -2- the petitioner has contracted from the respondents. The petitioners approached the police initially seeking protection for life and the same was granted. Only when they came to the police station and disclosed the details it became known to the police that there was property dispute between the parties. The petitioner was directed to file fresh petition. There is no compliance with the above direction yet. 3. We have considered the submissions addressed at the Bar. We notice that this Court has by order dated 12/04/11 issued an interim direction to the first respondent to afford protection to the petitioner against any threat to his life or person emanating from respondents 2 and 3 for enforcement of monetary claims. We confirm the above interim order. 4. As for the other grievances, we feel that those grievance will have to be got redressed by the petitioner through other appropriate fora of law. W. P. C. No.11051 of 2011 -3- 5. With these observations, we dispose of this Writ Petition. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-