IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2011 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 7849 of 2011(E) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. MRS.OUIDA ALTHEA FERNANDEZ @ ALTHEA FERNANDEZ, AGED 43, DAUGHTER OF LATE OWEN ARCHDALE BARNARD, RESIDING AT DOOR NO. XV/122, NAZARETH, KOCHI-682 002. 2. JEFFCELY FERNANDEZ, AGED 50, S/O.FERNANDEZ, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.XV/122, NAZARETH, KOCHI-682 002. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVINDRAN PUZHANKARA RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-30. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, MATTANCHERRY POLICE STATION, MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI-2. 3. MRS.ALISON ELIZEBATH CABRAL, AGED ABOUT 48, W/O.EDGAR CABRAL,R/AT DOOR NO.CCXXI/194,'LIZBAN' PUTHUPARAMBIL,ARAYAD,MUNDAMVELI P.O,KOCHI-682 007, PRESENTLY IN DUBAI,UAE REPRESENTED HEREIN BY HER RECOGNIZED AGENT/P/AT HOLDER MS.EDNA CABRAL,AGED 50,D/O.FLORIAN CABRAL,R/AT IN THE AFORESAID ADDRESS AT KOCHI-7 4. MS.EDNA CABRAL, AGED ABOUT 53, D/O.FLORIAN CABRAL, RESIDING AT DOOR NO. CC:XXI/194, `LIZBAN', PUTHUPARAMBIL, ARAYAD, MUNDAMVELI P.O., KOCHI-7. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS R4 BY ADV. SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU SRI.SHAJI CHIRAYATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.7849/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.2587OF 1961 COCHIN SRO ENTERED INTO BETWEEN MRS.RUBY AND OTHERS. P2 COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.2146 OF 1994 OF COCHIN SRO ENTERED INTO BETWEEN MRS.RUBY AND OTHERS. P3 COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.431 OF 2006 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, KOCHI FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER AND OTHERS. P4 COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S.NO.431 OF 2006 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT,KOCHI FILED BY RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4. P5 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14/10/2008 IN O.S.NO.431 OF 1006 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KOCHI. P6 COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION NO.40 OF 2009 FILEDBY RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 IN O.S.NO.431 OF 2006. P7 COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER IN E.P.40 OF 2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.7849 of 2011-E ***************************** Dated this the 24th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Petitioners have come before this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondents 1 and 2 not to get involved in the civil dispute between the petitioners on the one hand and respondents 3 and 4 on the other. 2. The 1st petitioner had filed a civil suit against respondents 3 and 4. Respondents 3 and 4 in that case had raised a counter claim. Suit was dismissed and the counter claim was decreed. Long later, respondents 3 and 4 filed an execution petition complaining about violation of the decree. That petition has been dismissed vide order dated 14.02.2011 in E.P.No.40 of 2011 in O.S.No.41 of 2006. According to the petitioners, faced by the reverse in the attempt to execute the decree, respondents 3 and 4 are prevailing upon the 2nd respondent in an attempt to vex and harass the petitioners and grab property in the possession of the petitioners. They are not entitled to do the same. The police/2nd respondent is not entitled to intervene in the civil dispute and vex and harass the W.P(C) No.7849 of 2011-E 2 petitioners to compel them to make any concession in favour of respondents 3 and 4. It is with these averments that the petitioners have come before this Court with this petition. 3. Respondents 3 and 4 have entered appearance through a counsel. Counsel only prays for time to file counter affidavit. The learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 submits that it is true that a complaint/petition has been received from respondents 3 and 4. That complaint was looked into by the police. The police are now satisfied that in the wake of dismissal of the execution petition, the police cannot do anything in the matter and the parties must seek relief if any from the court which passed the decree or the execution court. If aggrieved, the parties have to challenge the order passed by the Execution Court. In these circumstances, the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the 2nd respondent undertakes that the 2nd respondent shall not in any way intervene in the civil dispute between the petitioners on the one hand and respondents 3 and 4 on the other. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the wake of that submission by the learned Government Pleader, the petitioners do not want to seek any further relief. 5. The learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 on the W.P(C) No.7849 of 2011-E 3 other hand submits that if there is any acts of violence/crime committed against respondents 3 and 4 by the petitioners, the petitioners must have the option to complain before the police and the police must in that event discharge their obligations under law. The learned Government Pleader submits that undertaking is only that the police shall not intervene in the civil dispute between the petitioners and respondents 3 and 4. If there is allegation of commission of crimes against any one of them – petitioners or respondents 3 and 4, the police shall take necessary steps in accordance with law on such complaints, submits the learned Government Pleader. 6. In the light of that clarification by the learned Government Pleader, we are satisfied that no further directions are necessary. 7. Recording the submission of the learned Government Pleader, this Writ Petition is dismissed as agreed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/