IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 1599 of 2011(Y)
1. THOMAS PHILIPOSE, S/O. P.P.PHILIPOSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. ASHOK KUMAR.T.Y. VALLIAKALAYIL HOUSE,
4. REMA ASHOK KUMAR, W/O. T.ASHOK KUMAR,
5. THOMAS THOMAS, S/O. THOMAS, THAZUMBALA
For Petitioner :SRI.S.PRAKASH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :18/01/2011
O R D E R
R. BASANT &
K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
-------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 1599 of 2011-Y
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of January, 2011
JUDGMENT
Basant,J.
The petitioner – a senior citizen, has come to this Court
with this petition under Art.226 of the Constitution for issue of
appropriate directions to respondents 1 and 2 to afford police
protection to him.
2. What is the dispute? The petitioner claims to have
purchased two items of properties under Exts.P1 and P2. As
access to the properties purchased under Exts.P1 and 2, the son
of the petitioner, who is not a party to this proceeding, has
purchased Ext.P3 property. Regarding the use and enjoyment
of Ext.P3 property, there is a dispute between the owner of
Ext.P3 property and respondents 3 to 5. Respondents 3 to 5, it
appears, claim a right of pathway through Ext.P3 property. The
W.P.(C) No. 1599 of 2011 -: 2 :-
3rd respondent is already before the civil court for resolution of
that dispute. The petitioner’s son is not available in India and
claiming that the petitioner is acting on his behalf, the petitioner
has been arrayed as a party to that suit. The civil court has
already passed interim directions in the matter. An order to
maintain status quo, it is stated, has been passed by the civil
court.
3. The crux of the grievance of the petitioner is that
respondents 3 to 5 are acting contrary to the said order directing
maintenance of status quo. The status quo was that the
petitioner was using Ext.P3 property. The petitioner is not
permitted by respondents 3 to 5 now to enter and use that
property. It is on this aspect that direction for police protection
is sought.
4. The civil court is seized to the matter. The order to
maintain status quo has already been passed. If either party has
a grievance that the said order to maintain status quo is not
being observed scrupulously, such party must seek appropriate
further directions from the civil court which passed the order.
They cannot run to the police officer and request the police
officer to interpret the interim order and grant relief. Specific
directions will have to be sought from the civil court concerned
which passed the order to maintain status quo.
W.P.(C) No. 1599 of 2011 -: 3 :-
5. We are not, in these circumstances, satisfied that any
directions under Art.226 need be issued to respondents 1 and 2.
With the observation that the parties must approach the civil
court which passed the order directing maintenance of status
quo in case there is any dispute regarding what the status quo
was and how the order has to be interpreted, this writ petition is
dismissed.
Sd/-
R. BASANT
(Judge)
Sd/-
K. SURENDRA MOHAN
(Judge)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge