K C THOMAS Vs. SUPT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute between the parties is essentially one of a civil nature and perhaps I could have summarily disposed of this O.P., but I am proposing to deal with it on the merits only because petitions of this nature appear to be quite common these days and therefore it would be profitable to define the limits of discretionary exercise of the power of this court in such matters. Before I set down my views on the principle involved let me deal with the case before me.

(2.) Having obtained an order for injunction, Ext. P1, from the District Judge's Court, Thodupuzha, restraining the 3rd respondent herein and others from enclosing the space of 3 feet touching the northern wall of the petitioner's building and constructing the shade "abutting over the petitioner's roof", the petitioner came to this court complaining that the 3rd respondent, who is highly influential as Chairman of a political party, is misconducting himself by violating the letter and spirit of the injunction order. It is said that the petitioner approached the police and because of the indifferent inaction by the police, he was driven to this court.

(3.) As it is there is an order of the civil court in force and the 3rd respondent has no case that he has violated the order. It has not been established that the 3 feet way has been enclosed nor has it been shown that any shade has been constructed "abutting over the petitioner's roof". Certainly the petitioner cannot expect the police to exercise themselves because of apprehensions of the petitioner in a matter of this nature. To dispose of this case it is sufficient to record the submission of counsel for the 3rd respondent that he does not propose to violate the injunction order. If, despite such assurance and the order of injunction, there is violation, it would be time enough then for the petitioner to seek appropriate relief. Hence as it is no direction is called for.