K.Savithri vs State Rep.By S.I.Of Police on 30 July, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RP.No. 683 of 2009(T)


1. K.SAVITHRI, AGED 62
                      ...  Petitioner
2. M.V.MADHAVI AMMA, AGED 68, D/O.RAMAN NAM
3. M.V.RAJEEVAN, AGED 48 S/O.NARAYANAN

                        Vs



1. STATE REP.BY S.I.OF POLICE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

3. O.GOPALAKURUP, AGED 70.

4. VENU, AGED 40

                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.RANJITH NARAYANAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN

 Dated :30/07/2009

 O R D E R
                    P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ.
                    = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                   R.P. 683 OF 2009 IN W.P.(C) 12997/2009
                           = = = = = = = = = = = = =
              DATED THIS, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2009.

                                  O R D E R

Raman, J.

This review petition is filed by the petitioners in the writ petition.

W.P.(C) 12997 of 2009 was filed seeking police protection. We find that

the petitioner had instituted a suit and a decree was passed and eventually,

possession was also taken. But there was a doubt as to whether the

disputed property was also taken in to possession taking note of the fact

that a suit is filed by the respondent and it was represented on behalf of the

respondent that an interlocutory application was also filed alleging that the

petitioners in the writ petition have trespassed into the property and no

orders have been obtained by the third respondent yet. In those

circumstances, we directed that appropriate orders to be passed in the said

interlocutory application and thereafter subject to the orders that may be

passed by the civil court petitioner can approach the police if the order is in

his favour. This revision petition is filed to bring to the notice of this Court

that the submission that an interlocutory application was pending before the

court is wrong and it is only after the disposal of the writ petition that the

R.P. 683/2009 2

interlocutory application was filed and thus, there is thus a

misrepresentation made by the respondent.

In the circumstances, we review the order and direct the third

respondent to afford necessary protection to the petitioner.

The review petition is allowed.

P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE

P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE.

KNC/-