Kerala High Court
N.Sahadevan vs The Inspector General Of Police on 29 July, 2009
Bench: P.R.Raman, P.Bhavadasan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 20641 of 2009(A)
1. N.SAHADEVAN, S/O.NANUKUTTAN NADAR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
4. MOHANAN, MASS, VILASOM, AMBANAD,
5. SUDHA, W/O.MOHANAN, -DO-.
6. VIDILA, W/O.PUSHPARAJ,
7. BALAKRISHNAN, AYYAPPA SADANAM,
8. THANKAMANI, W/O.BALAKRISHNAN, -DO-.
9. VINOD, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI
For Respondent :SRI.D.KISHORE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :29/07/2009
O R D E R
P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.20641 of 2009
-------------------------------
Dated this the 29th July, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Raman, J.
Petitioner is stated to be owner of 8 > cents of land in Survey No.268/91 and 407/91 in Nemam Village. There is a compound wall on the western boundary. Alleging that respondents 4 to 9 and their men are causing obstruction to carry out necessary works in the compound wall and seeking police protection, this writ petition is filed.
2. We have issued notice by special messenger to party respondents 4 to 9. They have entered appearance and filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations. Admittedly, there is a civil suit instituted by the petitioner himself as O.S.No.1398 of 2007, and is pending before the Additional Munsiff Court, Thiruvanananthapuram. In that, an interlocutory application is filed by the defendant for interim injunction, as W.P.(C) No.20641 of 2009 2 evidenced by Ext.R4(b). The prayer in the said I.A. is for an injunction restraining the plaintiff, i.e., the petitioner herein, and his agents from carrying out any construction on the compound wall abutting the western boundary of plaint B schedule pathway, so as to reduce the width of the plaint B schedule pathway, till the disposal of the suit. It is stated that the said I.A. has been heard and orders are reserved. That being the position, a police protection cannot be granted, rather the petitioner can obtain necessary orders from the civil court where the matter is pending including for plastering work to be done in the compound wall.
3. The main prayer made in the I.A. is not to make any construction in the compound wall or alteration made to that, with a view to reduce the width of the pathway. Therefore, it is for the open to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court seeking permission for plastering the compound wall. If such an application is moved, we have no doubt that the court below will consider the same and pass appropriate orders to do W.P.(C) No.20641 of 2009 3 the same, without affecting the right of the parties pending adjudication in the civil dispute.
The writ petition is disposed of with the above observation.
P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN , JUDGE.
nj.