IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 4362 of 2010(U)
1. MERCELY, S/O.ACHANBAVA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. JOSEPH KUNJAPPAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN
For Respondent :SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :19/02/2010
O R D E R
K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.4362 of 2010-U
----------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 19th day of February, 2010
J U D G M E N T
K.M.Joseph, J.
Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the
following reliefs:-
“i). to issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ or direction to the 2nd respondent
not to interfere in the civil dispute and threaten
him to settle the civil dispute.
ii). to issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ or direction to the 2nd respondent
not to interfere with the construction of the
compound wall being made by the petitioner and
not to harass the petitioner.”
2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as
follows:- The petitioner is the 2nd defendant in
O.S.No.132/1987. The said suit was decreed against he
petitioner by Ext.P1 judgment. Petitioner filed appeal. The
appeal was allowed by Ext.P2 judgment. Against the said
judgment plaintiffs filed S.A.875/1999 before this Court
(Ext.P3). The appellants in the Second Appeal are no more.
Exts.P4 and P5 are the death certificates of the appellants.
According to the petitioner, the second appeal stands abated.
Petitioner started construction of compound wall in his
property. The 2nd respondent has interfered on the basis of
the complaint by the 3rd respondent stating that the matter is
pending before this Court and hence the petitioner cannot
WPC 4362/2010 -2-
construct the compound wall.
3. We heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and also the
learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel for the 3rd
respondent submits that an application has been filed to
implead the legal heirs of the appellants and that some defects
were noted. It is submitted that it is also reported that papers
are missing and the 3rd respondent is amenable to filing fresh
application. Learned Government Pleader would submit that
the 2nd respondent will not interfere in the matter as it is a
pure civil matter and that the 2nd respondent only directed
both the parties to maintain law and order.
We record the above submission of the learned
Government Pleader and close this writ petition. We make it
clear that this will be without prejudice to the rights of the
parties.
(K.M.JOSEPH)
JUDGE.
(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS)
JUDGE.
MS