IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 34282 of 2010(I)
1. CYRIAC
... Petitioner
Vs
1. JOSEPH THOMAS
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :15/11/2010
O R D E R
K.M. JOSEPH &
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C).No. 34282 of 2010 I
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 15th day of November, 2010
JUDGMENT
Joseph, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the
following reliefs:
“i) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction to respondents 4
to 6 to provide adequate and sufficient police
protection for the person and property of the
petitioner from the ilelgal threats of respondents 1 to
3 and their henchmen.
ii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing
respondents 4 to 6 to provide adequate and sufficient
police protection to the petitioner for carrying out
the construction of compound wall in his property
from the illegal threats of respondents 1 to 3.”
W.P.(C).No. 34282 of 2010
2
2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. Petitioner is
the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of a property having
an extent of 56 cents in Re-survey No.419/3-1 in Thrikkodithanam
Village, Changanacherry Taluk. Respondents 1 to 3, who are residing
on the eastern side of the petitioner’s property, are on inimical terms
with the petitioner. There are rubber trees standing in the property of
the petitioner. Petitioner filed a civil suit, O.S.No. 314 of 2010, in the
Munsiff Court, Changanacherry. He filed an Interlocutory
Application, which was allowed. Ext.P1 is the plaint and Ext.P2 is
the interim order passed in the I.A.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner wants to construct a
compound wall, but respondents 1 to 3 are not permitting the petitioner
to enter into his property. Respondents 1 to 3 are causing serious
threat to the life of the petitioner. He filed Ext.P3 representation
before the 4th respondent.
4. We heard learned counsel for the petitioner,
Shri.Madhavankutty. He would submit that the petitioner has a liberty
W.P.(C).No. 34282 of 2010
3
to enjoy his property and essentially he has approached this court to
enforce the order of the civil court. He would submit that this Court
may grant atlease relief No.1.
5. Even according to the petitioner, respondents 1 to 3 are his
neighbours. The petitioner has already approached the civil court,
which has granted an ex parte injunction. Firstly we feel that there is
no adjudication as such by the civil court in the matter. It is settled law
that adjudication has to be done after hearing both parties. Secondly,
we notice that the petitioner has got alternative remedy as against the
three named persons. In fact the petitioner has already approached the
civil court and obtained an interim order also. Nothing prevents the
petitioner from seeking order of injunction after hearing the other side
also, in which case the petitioner is eligible to seek police protection
also from the civil court itself.
6. We do not feel that the petitioner has made out a case for
interference. Without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to seek
appropriate reliefs from the competent civil court, this Writ Petition is
W.P.(C).No. 34282 of 2010
4
dismissed. We make it clear that we have not pronounced anything on
the merits of the case. The petitioner can approach the competent civil
court, which court shall pass appropriate orders on merits,
untrammeled by anything contained in this judgment.
(K.M. JOSEPH)
Judge
(M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS)
Judge
tm