IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 25082 of 2010(T)
1. SARMILA, W/O.ASHOK KUMAR, 'ASWATHI'
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. KUNJU KRISHNA S/O.PULLAN,PANNACHAN
For Petitioner :SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN
For Respondent :SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :20/01/2011
O R D E R
R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
***********************
W.P(C) No.25082 of 2010
*****************************
Dated this the 20th day of January, 2011
JUDGMENT
BASANT, J.
The petitioner has a sad tale of woes to narrate. She had
an item of property measuring about 4 cents. That property was
trespassed upon and was reduced to the possession of the 3rd
respondent. The petitioner went to court with a suit for recovery
of possession. Ext.P1 judgment was passed in the said
proceedings. The petitioner’s prayer for recovery was allowed.
The petitioner took out execution and by Ext.P2 order, through
court the property was recovered from the possession of the 3rd
respondent and was entrusted to the petitioner.
2. Obstruction to enjoyment of property continued. The
petitioner came to this Court seeking directions under Article
226 of the Constitution of India to afford police protection to her.
That petition was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment. The petitioner
was directed to approach the competent civil court and seek
appropriate relief.
W.P(C) No.25082 of 2010 2
3. The petitioner did go to the civil court again.
O.S.No.194 of 2010 was filed by her against the 3rd respondent.
She secured Ext.P5 interim order. According to the petitioner,
in spite of Ext.P5 order, there was continued obstruction from
the 3rd respondent to the enjoyment of the property by the
petitioner. She had occasions to complain to the police. No
effective action was taken. Subsequently O.S.No.194 of 2010
has been finally disposed of and a decree for injunction, as
prayed for, has been granted to the petitioner vide the judgment
dated 30.07.2010 in O.S.No.194 of 2010. That judgment has
now become final without challenge. A copy of the same has
later been produced. In spite of that, obstructions are
continuing. It is, in these circumstances, prayed that directions
under Article 226 of the Constitution may be issued to
respondents 1 and 2 to afford police protection to the petitioner
to enjoy the property delivered to her under Ext.P2 and in
respect of which, the decree in O.S.No.194 of 2010 has been
passed and which has become final.
4. Respondent No.3 has entered appearance. The
learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that the 3rd
respondent has no intention to physically obstruct the enjoyment
of the property by the petitioner. It is true that no appeal has
W.P(C) No.25082 of 2010 3
been filed. That does not mean that the appeal will not or cannot
be filed in future. Until such an appeal is filed and interim
orders are secured from the appellate court by the 3rd
respondent, the 3rd respondent shall not in any way interfere
with the rights of the petitioner over the property in question,
undertakes the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.
5. The learned Government Pleader after taking
instructions from respondents 1 and 2 submits that respondents
1 and 2 are now convinced that O.S.No.194 of 2010 has been
disposed of finally in favour of the petitioner and that judgment
and decree have now become final without challenge. In these
circumstances, the police shall afford adequate protection to the
petitioner to enjoy the property delivered to her under Ext.P2
and in respect of which, she has secured the decree in
O.S.No.194 of 2010.
6. No civil dispute virtually survives now. The police is
bound to respect and give effect to decrees of civil courts. We
accept the undertaking of the learned Government Pleader that
the petitioner shall be afforded adequate police protection to
enjoy the property delivered to her under Ext.P2 in respect of
which decree has been passed in O.S.No.194 of 2010. We accept
W.P(C) No.25082 of 2010 4
that submission of the learned Government Pleader. The
petitioner shall be afforded adequate protection to enjoy the
property without any obstruction from the 3rd respondent.
7. This Writ petition is, in these circumstances, allowed
to the above extent.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)
rtr/