FASEELA BEEVI Vs. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) BRIEFLY put, the case of the petitioners is as follows: The petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of 04.04 Ares of property. The 2nd petitioner is a close relative of the first petitioner and he is authorized to develop the property. The 2nd petitioner is doing some development work in that property including construction of the compound wall. The 4th respondent's property is situated on the southern side of the petitioners' property. Respondents 3 to 6 are close relatives and residing very near to the petitioners' property. On the western side, a common private pathway having 4 meters width is lying in south north direction. The rough sketch prepared and submitted by the Advocate Commissioner in O.S.No.56/2012 is produced. There is a reference to threat by the party respondents. The 1st petitioner has filed O.S.No.10/2012. Ext.P4 is the plaint in O.S.No.10/2012. Ext.P5 is the interim order passed in I.A.No.344/2012. The petitioners have filed Ext.P6 complaint and is before us.

(3.) WE are of the view that in fact Ext.P6 which was filed before the police authority, the in action on the basis which the petitioners have approached this Court relates to implementing the court's order. As of now, there is only an ex parte order passed in Ext.P5. In the circumstances of the case and in view of the law, we are not inclined to grant the prayer. We accordingly relegate the petitioners to pursue the remedy open to the civil court. Without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to approach the competent civil court, this writ petition is closed. The civil court will proceed and decide the matter untramelled by anything contained in this judgment.