IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2011 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 12638 of 2011(D) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. TINY @ ANTONY, S/O.A.F.THOMAS, AKKARAPATTI HOUSE, KERALA DHANA VYAVASAYA KURIES & LOANS, SHORNUR ROAD, OPP. OF SAROJA NURSING HOME, THRISSUR. 2. RAJU AKKARAPATTI, S/O.A.F.THOMAS, AKKARAPATTI HOUSE, RAMAVARMAPURAM, PADUKAD, THRISSUR. 3. PEEYUS AKKARAPPATTI, S/O.A.F.THOMAS, AKKARAPATTI HOUSE, KIZHAKKE SURYA GRAMAM DESOM, KIZHAKKE KOTTA, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR-680001. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR-680005. 3. JACKY, S/O.THOTTUKARA PUTHENVEETTIL MATHAI, MADAKKATHARA VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. R3 BY ADVS. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL), SMT.R.RAJITHA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 12638 of 2011-D ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of May, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioners are the legal heirs of a deceased tenant. The 3rd respondent herein is the assignee of rights of some of the legal heirs of the deceased landlord. The 3rd respondent has a case that he has now purchased the entire rights of the deceased landlord from his legal heirs. 2. Be that as it may, there are disputes between the petitioners and the 3rd respondent. Parties are already before the civil court. The 3rd respondent has filed a suit for enforcing his rights to repair the building. The petitioners have approached the civil court with a suit against forcible eviction. The 3rd respondent had undertaken before the civil court that no attempt shall be made to forcibly evict the petitioners. 3. The present grievance of the petitioners is that contrary to the undertaking before the civil court, illegal attempts are being made to physically throw out the petitioners. It is prayed that police protection may be ordered. 4. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent undertakes W.P.(C) No. 12638 of 2011 -: 2 :- that no attempt shall be made by the 3rd respondent to physically throw the petitioners out of possession. He shall abide by the orders of the civil court. The 3rd respondent denies all allegations that are raised against him. 5. We note that the Vacation Court which admitted the matter had passed an interim order granting protection to the petitioners. Respondents 1 and 2 were directed: “to afford adequate, effective and meaningful police protection to the petitioners to carry on the business in the room bearing No.10/307 of Thrissur Corporation without any illegal obstruction from the 3rd respondent.” 6. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that the 3rd respondent, though he emphatically denies the allegations, has no intention to indulge in any culpable acts as apprehended by the petitioners. In these circumstances, the 3rd respondent has no objection in the interim order being made absolute without prejudice to the contentions of the 3rd respondent before the civil court. 7. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that the interim order dated 26/4/2011 extracted above can be made W.P.(C) No. 12638 of 2011 -: 3 :- absolute. 8. This writ petition is accordingly allowed. The interim order extracted above is made absolute. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge