A.T.John vs The C.I. Of Police on 7 January, 2011

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 553 of 2011(T)


1. A.T.JOHN, AGED 70 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. ACHAMMA JOHN, AGED 65 YEARS,

                        Vs



1. THE C.I. OF POLICE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

3. V.A.KARUNAKARAN,

4. MANUKUMAR,

5. MAHESH KUMAR,

6. SIVANKUTTY,

7. ABRAHAM @ PODYKUTTY,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN

 Dated :07/01/2011

 O R D E R
                             R.BASANT &
                    K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
        ------------------------------------------------------------
                    W.P(C) NO: 553 OF 2011
         -----------------------------------------------------------
                Dated this the 7th January, 2011.

                              JUDGMENT

Basant, J.

Petitioners have come to this Court with this petition for

issue of directions under Art.226 of the Constitution to

respondents 1 and 2 to afford police protection to them.

According to the petitioners they have secured decree from a

Civil Court which has become final. Decree prohibits the party

respondents from trespassing into the suit property which

belongs to the petitioners and others. The petitioners want to

put up/rebuilt a compound wall (kayyala) on one boundary of the

suit property. That is being opposed by the party respondents.

For this police protection is claimed.

2. We are afraid the petitioners have come to wrong forum.

The petitioners have to approach the court for execution of the

decree if there is any hindrance/obstruction notwithstanding the

decree against exercise of lawful acts of possession by the

Court. If this Court were to direct police protection the police

would become the arbiter as to where the boundary wall is to put

WPC 553/2011 2

up. That obviously cannot be permitted. Learned counsel for

the petitioners himself fairly submits that earlier an application

was filed before the execution court to execute the decree and

that the said petition was not pursued consequent to the

assurance given by the respondents, that they shall not raise any

objections. If they still raise objections it is certainly for the

petitioners to approach the execution court.

3. With the above observations this writ petition is

dismissed.

R.BASANT
Judge

K. SURENDRA MOHAN
Judge
jj

WPC 553/2011 3