Disposed

Aniyamma Mathew v. the District Police Chief

Kerala HC1 Jul 2019WP(C)/17136/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition filed by a property civil dispute victim seeking police protection after a landmark judgment against her was passed ex parte. The judiciary dismissed the plea that a pending revision application barred writ relief but relied on prima facie observations to direct police protection.

What did the court decide?

The third respondent shall conduct an inquiry and grant adequate police protection if incident repeats

Aniyamma Mathew Vs the District Police Chief — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶6

MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF JULY 2019 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶7

WP(C).No.17136 of 2019

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

ANIYAMMA MATHEW AGED 55 YEARS W/O. LATE MATHEW, RESIDING AT PULICKAL VEEDU, NADUVILE MURI, SOORNAD NORTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN SRI.M.KIRANLAL SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA) SRI.T.S.SARATH

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF KOLLAM RURAL POLICE DISTRICT, KOTTARAKKARA KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 506.

¶13

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, SOORANAD POLICE STATION KOLLAM DISTRICT 690 522

¶14

3 KRISHNAN KUTTY AGED 56 YEARS S/O. RAMAN, PANICKASSERIL VEEDU, NADUVILE MURI, SOORANAD NORTH VILLAGE, KUNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT 690 561.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH SR.GP. SRI. P.P.THAJUDHEEN

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No.17136 of 2019 ..2..

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

K.VINOD CHANDRAN,J.

¶20

The petitioner is aggrieved with the threats levelled by the 3^rd respondent and

¶21

fears for her life as also apprehends bodily harm. The petitioner and the 3^rd respondent had a civil dispute with respect to a path way. Both the petitioners filed separate suits as is seen from Ext.P2. The suit filed by the 3^rd respondent was dismissed and the petitioner's suit was allowed, granting a permanent prohibitory injunction from

¶22

trespassing into the plaint schedule property, on which the 3^rd respondent raised a claim of easmentary right.

¶23

The learned Counsel for the petitioner

¶24

submits that on an occasion, there was a

¶25

gathering of the 3^rd respondent along with

¶26

some goondas for the purpose of demolition of the petitioners compound wall, in violation

¶27

WP(C).No.17136 of 2019 ..3..

¶28

of the injunction; on which a complaint was registered. The petitioner prays for police

¶29

protection to her life and property.

¶30

Counsel and has filed a detailed counter

¶31

affidavit. The 3^rd respondent has a

¶32

contention that already an execution petition is filed as seen from Ext.R3(a) and hence the

¶33

petitioner is estopped from approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶34

of India. It is also contended that the 3^rd

¶35

respondent has also filed a CMA, which is pending before the Sub Court, Karungappilly. The 3^rd respondent's Counsel points out that both the suits were considered and judgment passed, after declaring the 3^rd respondent ex-parte .

¶36

The petitioner's Counsel submits that

¶37

after giving many opportunities for appearance, the learned Munsiff had posted

¶38

WP(C).No.17136 of 2019 ..4..

¶39

the matter for trial and then declared the defendants ex-parte on continued absence. A restoration application was also filed, which was also dismissed for default. We are of the opinion that the mere pendency of the CMA would not stand in the way of the petitioner from seeking execution of the decree granted to her, especially when the same is seen to have been granted in the year 2016.

¶40

The learned Senior Government Pleader, on instructions, also submits that there was an incident as alleged by the petitioner in the dark of night and an attempt to demolish the compound wall, which was averted by the timely interference of the police.

¶41

No such criminal activity shall be

¶42

carried on, especially when the petitioner

¶43

has a decree in her favour. The police would necessarily conduct an enquiry and if at all any such incident is repeated, shall grant

¶44

WP(C).No.17136 of 2019 ..5..

¶45

adequate police protection on a complaint raised by the petitioner. This order shall definitely be subject to the result of the CMA. We also make it clear that the

¶46

observations made by us are prima facie observations to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner and shall not govern the disposal of the CMA at all.

¶47

The writ petition is disposed of. No

order as to costs.

Sd/-

K.VINOD CHANDRAN

JUDGE

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE

SB/01/07/2019

WP(C).No.17136 of 2019 ..6..

¶57

APPENDIX

¶58

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶59

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 21/2/2019 OF THE PROPERTY ISSUED BY SOORANADU NORTH VILLAGE. EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 22.2.2016 PASSED BY MUNSIFF COURT SASTHAMCOTTA IN O S NO. 256/2008 AND O.S. NO. 265/2008

¶60

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 18.6.2019 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS RECEIPT

¶61

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION NIL DATED SUBMITTED TO R1 EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PRINTOUT OF E-MAIL COMMUNICATION TO THE OFFICE OF 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶62

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶63

EXHIBIT R3(A)	TRUE BY TH THE M	PHOTOCOPY OF E PETITIONER UNSIFF COURT,	THE EP. HEREIN AN SASTHAMC	NO.4/2018 FILED D OTHERS BEFORE OTTA.
EXHIBIT R3(B)	TRUE THE PETIT	PHOTOCOPY OF 3RD RESPOND ION OF THE PE	THE OBJ ENT TO TITIONER.	ECTION FILED BY THE EXECUTION
EXHIBIT R3(C)	TRUE PENDI KARUN	PHOTOCOPY NG BEFORE AGAPPILLY.	OF THE THE	CMA.NO.32/2018 SUB COURT,
EXHIBIT R3(D)	TRUE PENDI KARUN	PHOTOCOPY O NG BEFORE AGAPPILLY.	F THE THE	CMA NO.33/2018 SUB COURT,
EXHIBIT R3(E)	TRUE COMMI	PHOTOCOPY SSIONER'S REP // TRUE COPY P.A TO	OF ORT IN OS // JUDGE	THE ADVOCATE NO.265/2008.

Aniyamma Mathew v. the District Police Chief

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aniyamma Mathew v. the District Police Chief

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Kerala Vs R.Shareef

G.Mohandas Vs Station House Officer, Ezhukone

State of Kerala Vs Tom Jose

Mansoor Ibrahim.M.v., Vs the Sub-Inspector of Police

Ramdas.P.R Vs State of Kerala

Nishad Vs the State of Kerala