IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 2513 of 2010(L)
1. A.IGNATIUS LAYOLA,AGED 58 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
4. JERALD,S/O.G.C.ALEXANDER,'POURNAMI',
For Petitioner :SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :01/02/2010
O R D E R
K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.2513 of 2010-L
----------------------------------------------
Dated, this the Ist day of February, 2010
J U D G M E N T
K.M.Joseph, J.
Petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
“i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ,
direction or order, directing the respondents 1 to 3
not to interfere or harass the petitioner and his
wife.
ii). issue a writ of prohibition restraining
respondents 1 to 3 from forcibly evicting the
petitioner and his wife Santhi from the 40 cents of
property comprised in Resurvey Block
No.46/319/2 Neyyattinkara Taluk, Kulathoor
Village in Trivandrum District, which is the subject
matter of O.S.No.860 of 2002 of the Munsiff Court,
Neyyattinkara which is pending as A.S.No.158 of
2007 of the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara.”
2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as
follows:–Petitioner is in possession of 40 cents of land which
is outstanding on mortgage. Petitioner purchased the said
property in 1993 and thereafter he is in exclusive possession
W.P.C.2513/2010 -2-
of the same. The 4th respondent is the elder brother of the
petitioner. There is allegation that he attempted to trespass
into the property belonging to the petitioner by raising
frivolous claims. The petitioner filed O.S.No.860/2002 before
the Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara for declaration of title and
for injunction against the 4th respondent. It is stated that the
suit is dismissed and the petitioner filed appeal. Petitioner
has also filed an application for injunction. According to the
petitioner, it is a civil dispute. It is stated that the police as
directed by the 4th respondent have on several occasions
came to the petitioner’s house and asked his wife to inform
the petitioner to be present in the police station. It is stated
that the police feel that as the suit is dismissed it is now their
duty to throw out the petitioner from the premises.
3. The learned Government Pleader was asked to
get instruction. Learned Government Pleader would submit
that both the parties preferred complaint before the police
and there is civil case pending. It is submitted that police
directed the parties to be present and that the parties did not
turn up. It is also submitted that police will not interfere in
W.P.C.2513/2010 -3-
the civil dispute between the parties. We record the
submission made by the learned Government Pleader and
close this writ petition.
(K.M.JOSEPH)
JUDGE.
(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS)
JUDGE.
MS
W.P.C.2513/2010 -4-