IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2010 / .3TH KARTHIKA 1932 OP(C).No. 577 of 2010(O) ------------------------ OS.748/2010 of MUNSIFF COURT,CHAVAKKAD .................... PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. MUHAMMED, AGED 55, S/O.PUYUVEETTIL MOIDU, EDASSERY PO, THALIKULAM VILLAGE DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. 2. MURALI, S/O.CHEMBANADAN DAMODHARAN, P.O.THAMPANKADAVU, THALIKULAM VILLAGE DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. 3. SUBAIR, S/O.PUYUVEETTIL MUHAMMED EDASSERY PO,THALIKULAM VILLAGE DESOM CHAVAKKAD TALUK. 4. BASHEER, S/O.ARAKAVEETIL MUHAMMED, VADANAPPILLY VILLAGE DESOM, P.O.VADANAPPILLY, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. USMAN, S/O.SEVAMKUHIVEETIL MUHAMMED, VADANAPPILLY AMSOM DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680506 2. ABDULLAKUTTY, S/O. ARAKAVEETIL ADAM, VADANAPPILLY AMSOM DESOM,CHAVAKKAD TALUK-680506 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADANAPPILLY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR-680506 THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.577 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 04th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed O.S.No.748 of 2010 in the court of learned Munsiff, Chavakkad for a decree for prohibitory injunction against petitioners conducting fish vending in the suit property and thereby causing nuisance to respondents and others. Learned Munsiff passed Ext.P4, order of interim injunction and on a complaint that the said order is not being complied issued Ext.P6, order (on Ext.P5, application) directing the local police to enforce the order of injunction. Grievance of petitioners/defendants is that as per the scheduled descriptions in the plaint, the extent of property referred to therein is not clear. It is also their grievance that they are not engaged in fish vending in the suit property but they are doing business in the market authorised by the panchayath. But, under cover of Ext.P6, order the local police is harassing and disturbing them from their lawful avocation of life in the market authorised by the local authority. Learned counsel therefore seeks a clarification to Ext.P6, order. O.P(C).No.577 of 2010 : 2 : 2. Learned Munsiff has only passed an interim order of injunction. Learned counsel tells me that petitioners have not so far filed any objection to the application for injunction. It is open to the petitioners to raise all their contentions before the learned Munsiff by filing objection and requesting the learned Munsiff to vacate the interim order of injunction if they are aggrieved by that order. The alternative remedy available to them is to prefer an appeal against the interim order if on the face of that order it is invalid according to them for whatever reason. If petitioners have a contention that their business in the market authorised by the local authority is being obstructed by the local police under cover of Ext.P6, order it is open to the petitioners to seek appropriate clarification or direction as the case may be from the learned Munsiff in that regard. It is also open to the petitioners to prefer their objection, if any, to Ext.P6, order. There is no reason why this court should interfere in the matter at this stage. Resultantly without prejudice to the right of petitioners to raise their objections before the learned Munsiff as regarding correctness of Ext.P4 and/or Ext.P6, orders or seek clarification regarding Ext.P6, order this petition is closed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-