IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 34282 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- CYRIAC, S/O. CHERIYAN PAZHAYACHIRAYIL HOUSE KOTTAMURI P.O., THRIKKODITHANAM CHANGANACHERRY BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. JOSEPH THOMAS S/O. THOMAS PAZHAYACHIRAYIL HOUSE KOTTAMURI P.O., THRIKKODITHANAM CHANGANACHERRY - 686 101. 2. SIBY, S/O.JOSEPH THOMAS PAZHAYACHIRAYIL HOUSE KOTTAMURI P.O., THRIKKODITHANAM CHANGANACHERRY - 686 101. 3. CHERIAN, S/O.JOSEPH THOMAS PAZHAYACHIRAYIL HOUSE KOTTAMURI P.O., THRIKKODITHANAM CHANGANACHERRY - 686 101. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE THRIKKODITHAN POLICE STATION CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM - 686 101. 5. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHANGANACHERRY POLICE STATION - 686 101. 6. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KOTTAYAM - 686 003 GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI. T K VIPINDAS FOR R4-6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 34282 of 2010 I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “i) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to respondents 4 to 6 to provide adequate and sufficient police protection for the person and property of the petitioner from the ilelgal threats of respondents 1 to 3 and their henchmen. ii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 4 to 6 to provide adequate and sufficient police protection to the petitioner for carrying out the construction of compound wall in his property from the illegal threats of respondents 1 to 3.” W.P.(C).No. 34282 of 2010 2 2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. Petitioner is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of a property having an extent of 56 cents in Re-survey No.419/3-1 in Thrikkodithanam Village, Changanacherry Taluk. Respondents 1 to 3, who are residing on the eastern side of the petitioner's property, are on inimical terms with the petitioner. There are rubber trees standing in the property of the petitioner. Petitioner filed a civil suit, O.S.No. 314 of 2010, in the Munsiff Court, Changanacherry. He filed an Interlocutory Application, which was allowed. Ext.P1 is the plaint and Ext.P2 is the interim order passed in the I.A. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner wants to construct a compound wall, but respondents 1 to 3 are not permitting the petitioner to enter into his property. Respondents 1 to 3 are causing serious threat to the life of the petitioner. He filed Ext.P3 representation before the 4th respondent. 4. We heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri.Madhavankutty. He would submit that the petitioner has a liberty W.P.(C).No. 34282 of 2010 3 to enjoy his property and essentially he has approached this court to enforce the order of the civil court. He would submit that this Court may grant atlease relief No.1. 5. Even according to the petitioner, respondents 1 to 3 are his neighbours. The petitioner has already approached the civil court, which has granted an ex parte injunction. Firstly we feel that there is no adjudication as such by the civil court in the matter. It is settled law that adjudication has to be done after hearing both parties. Secondly, we notice that the petitioner has got alternative remedy as against the three named persons. In fact the petitioner has already approached the civil court and obtained an interim order also. Nothing prevents the petitioner from seeking order of injunction after hearing the other side also, in which case the petitioner is eligible to seek police protection also from the civil court itself. 6. We do not feel that the petitioner has made out a case for interference. Without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to seek appropriate reliefs from the competent civil court, this Writ Petition is W.P.(C).No. 34282 of 2010 4 dismissed. We make it clear that we have not pronounced anything on the merits of the case. The petitioner can approach the competent civil court, which court shall pass appropriate orders on merits, untrammeled by anything contained in this judgment. (K.M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm