IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 21221 of 2007(B)
1. SREE BHAGAVATHY HANDLOOM WEAVER'S
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
... Respondent
2. THE TRIVANDRUM CO-OPERATIVE DISTRICT
3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM
For Respondent :SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN,SC,K.S.CO-OP BANK
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :24/07/2007
O R D E R
P.R. RAMAN & K. HEMA, JJ.
--------------------------------------------
WP(C) No.21221 of 2007
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of July, 2007.
JUDGMENT
Raman, J.
Petitioner is a Co-operative Society registered under the Kerala Co-
operative Societies Act. They seek a writ of mandamus directing the first
respondent to hand over the key of the lock put by them in the shutters of
the shop room of the petitioner and for a writ of mandamus directing
respondents 3 and 4 to give necessary protection to open and continue
their business in the premises of the first respondent covered by Ext.P3
decree till such time the first respondent evicts the petitioner by due
process of law.
2. The petitioner is stated to be a sub-tenant under the second
respondent and continues to be in possession and doing business in the
tenanted premises. According to him, there was a suit filed by the first
respondent, which was compromised and eventually a compromise decree
was passed and the petitioner continued to occupy the premises. But,
subsequently, the first respondent along with some goondas put down the
shutters forcibly and thereby the petitioner was prevented from doing his
business and the first respondent put a lock over the lock of the petitioner.
3. This writ petition was filed on 9th July, 2007. But the petitioner had
preferred a suit O.S.1010/2007 before the Munsiff’s Court,
Thiruvananthapuram under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. First
respondent filed an affidavit in the said suit. It is averred that the suit is
one for restoration of possession under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.
It is also alleged that there is stock worth Rs.25 lakhs inside the plaint
[WP(C).21221/07] 2
schedule property, but while drafting the plaint, some mistakes had crept in
and some omissions have taken place in not including certain prayers which
ought to have been made. In these circumstances, the suit was eventually
dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit. Ext.P8 is the copy
of the judgment rendered in the suit. Since the petitioner had approached a
civil court for appropriate relief against the illegality as alleged against first
respondent, this writ petition filed thereafter seeking police protection cannot
be entertained and granted since the rights of the parties have to be
adjudicated after taking evidence which normally has to be sought from a
civil court or other forum competent to adjudicate such right of parties.
Since a factual finding regarding possession or dispossession cannot be
effectively adjudicated in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, we decline jurisdiction and relegate the petitioner to approach the
civil court or other competent forum as the case may be for appropriate
relief.
Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE.
K. HEMA, JUDGE.
Krs.