Saraswathy Amma vs Gopakumar C. and Others

K.M. Joseph, J.—The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction directing the 5th respondent herein the Sub Inspector of Police, Chadayamangalam, to take necessary steps in accordance with law, so that the rights and interests of the petitioner are protected and the compound wall completed by giving effect to Ext.P1 decree unobstructed by respondents 1 to 4.

ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the 5th respondent, the Sub Inspector of Police, Chadayamangalam and his subordinates to restrain respondents 1 to 4 herein from their illegal acts and allow the petitioner to continue the construction work made mention of in Ext.P8 representation peacefully and without being obstructed by respondents to 4 herein.

Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. She is the absolute owner in possession of the plaint schedule property. An ex parte decree was obtained by the petitioner in O.S. No. 84 of 1995. There is dispute regarding the southern boundary of the property, where there is a pathway. An attempt was made by the respondents to trespass into the property of the petitioner. The petitioner filed a private complaint before the Magistrate Court as C.C. 74 of 1999. Ext.P2 is the copy of the judgment in that case. Petitioner filed Ext.P3 plan before the Chadayamangalam Grama Panchayat and obtained Ext.P4 permit for construction of the compound wall. She started construction of the compound wall. But respondent 1 to 4 obstructed the same. Petitioner filed O.S. 226 of 2010 before the Munsiff Court, Kottarakkara. Ext.P6 is the commissioner''s report. Ext.P7 is the interim order passed restraining respondents 1 to 4 from obstructing the construction of the compound wall. It is stated that respondents 2 and 3 are agents of respondents 1 and 4. Against the first respondent Ext.P1 decree is passed. Petitioner filed Ext.P8 representation, for which Ext.P9 receipt was obtained.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the party respondents and the learned Government Pleader.

On a perusal of the pleading, it is seen that the petitioner has already approached the civil court and obtained interim order. In such circumstance we feel that it is more appropriate that the petitioner is relegated to the civil court itself, from where the petitioner can seek appropriate reliefs.

Without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to approach the Civil court, this Writ Petition is disposed of. We further direct that in case the petitioner has complained or complains of commission of any cognizable offence by respondents 1 to 4 before the 5th respondent, the 5th respondent shall take action in accordance with law.