IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23836 of 2008(K)
1. VELAYUDHAN PILLAI @ BABU, AGED 65 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA.
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
4. VIJAYA KRISHNAN KUNJU, AGED 69 YEARS,
5. SUBHASH, AGED 60 YEARS,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.MOHANAN
For Respondent :SRI.K.HARILAL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :01/09/2008
O R D E R
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI JJ.
-----------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.23836 OF 2008
-----------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 1stDAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The petitioner got 36 cents of land in a family partition. The said
property abuts a public road on the western side. On that side, there is a
building which houses the tea shop run by the petitioner. The back
portion of that building is used by him for his residential purpose. The
respondents 4 and 5 are the brothers of the petitioner. In the family
partition, they have been given a right of way to their respective plots
from the adjacent road. They claim that a portion of the petitioner’s
building stands in that pathway. So, they want the petitioner to demolish
that portion of the building. According to the petitioner, his building
stands in the property allotted to him only. Apprehending that the
respondents 4 and 5 may demolish a portion of the building to enforce
their claim, the petitioner moved the civil court and obtained Exhibit P4 ad
interim order of injunction restraining them from causing any damage to
the building so as to widen the existing pathway. The petitioner submits,
in violation of the injunction order, on 20.7.2008, they demolished a
portion of the roof of the building. The same is clear from Exhibit P6
photograph. Immediately, the petitioner moved the civil court for
prosecuting the aforementioned respondents for violation of the injunction
W.P.(C)No.23836/08 -2-
order. While so, on the night of 1.8.2008, the party respondents and their
men came to his door steps, knocked and threatened to physically harm him
for pursuing the civil suit against them. The employees of the hotel came
running and thereupon, they made their escape. Next day, the petitioner
filed various representations before various authorities including Exhibit P7
before the Sub Inspector of Police. Alleging that no action has been taken on
them, this Writ Petition is filed.
2. The learned Government Pleader upon instructions submitted
that respondents 4 and 5 were called to the Police Station and strictly
warned. The 5th respondent filed a counter affidavit denying all the
allegations of the petitioner.
3. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. It is submitted on
behalf of respondents 4 and 5 that they have no intention whatsoever to
physically threaten or harm the petitioner. This submission is recorded. For
the alleged violation of the injunction order, the petitioner may pursue his
remedies before the civil court.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE.
M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.
dsn