High Court Kerala High Court

Sudheer Kumar vs The Superintendent Of Police on 2 August, 2010

Kerala High Court
Sudheer Kumar vs The Superintendent Of Police on 2 August, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 23795 of 2010(Y)


1.  SUDHEER KUMAR
                      ...  Petitioner
2. SHAJI GEORGE, AGED 37 YEARS

                        Vs



1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

4. ST.KURIAKOSE ORTHODOX CHURCH,ENATHU,

5. K.VARGHESE, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.KUNJACHAN

6. DR. P.C.MATHEW, AGED 55 YEARS

                For Petitioner  :SRI.  K.SHAJ

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

 Dated :02/08/2010

 O R D E R
            THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN
                                   &
                S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ.
                     -------------------------------
                W.P.(C).NO.23795 OF 2010
                   -----------------------------------
            Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2010

                         J U D G M E N T

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

This writ petition is filed seeking direction to the Police to

provide protection to the life and property of the petitioners.

2. The 4th respondent Church has filed O.S.No.70 of 2010

before the Munsiff’s Court, Adoor against the petitioners herein.

Going by the materials on record, there is a Commissioner’s

report and plan obtained in that case. The dispute between the

parties to that suit revolves around half cents of land. The

allegations of the petitioners is that on the basis of the fact that

the claim in the suit is by a Church, the local people, particularly

the parishioners, are abusing the situation and creating law and

order problems. We think that it would not be appropriate for

WP(C).23795/10 2

the High Court to exercise power under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India on this particular statement alone, because

the civil court is in seizin of the dispute regarding the immovable

property and having regard to the quality of jurisdiction of that

court to issue injunctions and other protective orders even under

its inherent powers. We dismiss this writ petition, without

prejudice to appropriate remedies and leaving the petitioners to

work out their remedies through the civil court.

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN
JUDGE

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
JUDGE

prp

WP(C).23795/10 3