NAFEESA W/O ORAVAKKOTTIL ABDU; ORAVAKKOTTIL ABDU S/O MOHAMMED; NASAR S/O ORAVAKKOTTIL ABDU Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are facing a civil suit filed by the 5th respondent. There is an order of injunction against the petitioners. Learned Counsel for the petitioners point out that the said order of injunction, Ext.P2, is an order of injunction only to the effect that it restrains the writ petitioners from effecting any construction works in their property so as to endanger the house, well, bathroom, wall and other structures in the property scheduled in the petition, in which, Ext.P2 order of injunction has been issued. In fact, Ext.P2 is a copy of the injunction warrant. With this, the petitioners say that the police are resorting to harassment, they having issued Exts.P4 to P6. We have read Exts.P4 to P6. They only contain directions to the petitioners to stop any construction endangering the property of the 5th respondent without orders of the court. This obviously means only that the writ petitioners have to strictly abide by the terms of the order of temporary prohibitory injunction as evidenced by Ext.P2. We do not find that any case of harassment is made out. We, accordingly, direct that if the petitioners strictly comply with the order of injunction as contained in Ext.P2, the police officers will not take any further action on the basis of Exts.P4 to P6. We also clarify that nothing contained in this judgment or Exts.P4 to P6 will stand in the way of the writ petitioners or the 5th respondent seeking further direction from the civil court which is the right royal jurisdiction where parties have their litigations pending. The writ petition is ordered accordingly.