RAHMA ASLAM Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court seeking the following relief:

(2.) BRIEFLY put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of 8.80 Ares of land and a residential house wherein she is residing with his family. The property is surrounded with boundary walls of more than thirty years old. There was an attempt by respondents by 3 and 4 and their henchmen to demolish the compound wall. Petitioner filed O.S.No.305/12 before the Munsiff Court, Varkala. Ext.P3 is the ad-interim ex parte injunction order. Even thereafter, there was threat and also the compound wall was demolished. Petitioner filed complaint and is before us.

(3.) IN the circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to give protection for enjoyment of property rights. Petitioner has obtained only an ex parte order, as things stand. No doubt, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that no attempt was made to vacate Ext.P3 order. But, none-the-less, it remains an ex parte order. If the petitioner has a complaint regarding demolition, the petitioner has to work out his remedies before the civil court.