GLADSTONE GEORGE VARGHESE Vs. DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant filed W.P.(C)No.28913 of 2023, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2, namely, the District Police Chief, Kollam and the Station House Officer, Pooyappally Police Station, to afford effective and meaningful protection to the appellant and his contractor for cutting and removing rubber trees from his property in Re.Sy.No.10/6 of Pooyappally Village. The appellant has also sought for a writ forbearing respondents 3 and 4 from causing any obstruction for the cutting and removal of rubber trees from the property in Re.Sy.No.10/6 of Pooyappally Village. On receipt of the notice in the writ petition, respondents 3 and 4 entered appearance and filed a counter affidavit dtd. 6/9/2023, producing therewith Ext.R4(a) interlocutory application filed in O.S.No.451 of 2018, invoking the provisions under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the appellant and another alleging disobedience and breach of the order of injunction, i.e., Ext.P5 order 8/10/2018 and Ext.P6 order dtd. 20/12/2018 of the Munsiff Court, Kottarakkara in I.A.No.2847 of 2018 in O.S.No.451 of 2018. After considering the rival contentions, the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dtd. 18/9/2023 dismissed the writ petition observing that it is for the parties to obtain appropriate orders from the civil court. In the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge noticed that there is a civil dispute between the parties, which is pending before the Munsiff Court, Kottarakkara in O.S.No.451 of 2018. Before the learned Single Judge, it was contended that the property in respect of which police protection has been sought for does not form the subject matter of O.S.No.451 of 2018. The same was disputed by respondents 3 and 4.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2; and the learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition on the ground that a civil dispute is pending between the parties in O.S.No.451 of 2018 before the Munsiff Court, Kottarakkara. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 would contend that the learned Single Judge rightly declined interference, taking note of the pendency of O.S.No.451 of 2018, and the impugned judgment warrants no interference.