Krishna Moorthy vs The District Superintendent Of on 6 June, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 16875 of 2008(H)


1. KRISHNA MOORTHY, AGED 67,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

3. BABY AMMAL, S/O. SOMASUNDARAM,

4. SINDHU, W/O. RAJAN, PORIKKARAN STREET,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI

 Dated :06/06/2008

 O R D E R
                         K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR &

                             M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.

                     -----------------------------------------

                       W.P.(C) NO. 16875 OF 2008-H

                     -----------------------------------------

                            Dated 6th June, 2008.

                                 JUDGMENT

Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The petitioner is the owner of 1 acre and 85 cents of land. The

respondents 3 and 4 attempted several rounds of litigations to establish

their rights over that property. All those efforts became futile. Finally, the

petitioner moved the civil court and obtained Ext.P1 judgment and Ext.P1

(a) decree against them. The party respondents and their men were

restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of

the plaint schedule property by the petitioner and from trespassing into it.

Even thereafter, the respondents 3 and 4 are not ready to respect the

petitioner’s right over the property. When he went there with his workmen

to do agricultural operations, he was prevented, threatened and driven back

by the said respondents. So, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 petition before

the police to take appropriate action against respondents 3 and 4.

2. A reading of Ext.P2 would show that the overt acts from the part

WPC 16875/08 2

of respondents 3 and 4 amount to violation of Ext.P1(a) decree obtained by

the petitioner. If the decree is violated, the remedy of the petitioner does

not lie before the Police Station, but before the competent civil court. The

police cannot be conferred power or jurisdiction to decide on the allegation

of the petitioner that the judgment debtors have violated the decree obtained

by him. In view of the above position, the Writ Petition is not maintainable.

Accordingly, it is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the

petitioner and his right to move the competent civil court for appropriate

reliefs.

K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE.

M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.

Nm/