IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2009 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 6113 of 2009(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JOSE P.L., S/O. LOVIES, PORATHOOR HOUSE, KECHIERI P.O., TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNNAMKULAM. 3. FRANCIS P.L., S/O. LOVIES, PORATHOOR HOUSE, KECHIERI P.O., TRICHUR DISTRICT. R1 & 2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI P.A.SALIM. ADV. SRI.C.CHANDRASEKHARAN FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 6113 of 2009(H) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS - P1 - TRUE COPY OF DECREE DT. 24.11.06 IN OS 598/02 OF I ADDL. SUB COURT, THRISSUR. P2 - TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT. 16.2.2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R1. P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DT. 16.2.2009 ISSUED BY R1. P.R. RAMAN & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 6113 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------- DATED:MARCH 25, 2009. JUDGMENT Raman, J. Petitioner is a stamp vendor. The front room of the house is said to have obtained by him as per a will executed by his father and is used by the petitioner as his office. The 3rd respondent is the brother of the petitioner who was given the property adjacent to the house of the petitioner as per the will. It is alleged that with the active support of the 2nd respondent, the 3rd respondent is blocking the entry of the petitioner to the remaining portion of the house from his office room and the 2nd respondent is harassing the petitioner by interfering with the civil dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. 2. The 3rd respondent entered appearance. According to him, the father executed the will. There was a suit for partition. He questioned the will though upheld by the court below and appeals are pending before this court. According to him, if the petitioner is permitted to open the door and use the other part of the building, that will cause serious threat to the peaceful living of the 3rd respondent. W.P.(C) No. 6113 of 2009 :2: 3. The petitioner, on the other hand, would contend that his peaceful enjoyment of the office room cannot be blocked by unnecessary interference by the police and he also says that he has got a right to reside in the said house. 4. Obviously, therefore, whether the petitioner has got any right to use the other parts of the house is a matter in the nature of a civil dispute and since the appeals are pending before this court, it is open to the petitioner either to seek necessary interim orders from the appellate court or to institute any other civil proceedings. 5. At present there is nothing to show any harassment against the petitioner. When there is a civil dispute pending between the parties, either of them cannot take the law into his own hands. The police have a duty to maintain the law and order. To that extent the police can interfere. Regarding any other dispute, it is for the parties to approach the civil court. The writ petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. P.S. GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. mt/-