Kerala High Court
Rajalakshmi vs Station House Officer on 4 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 15TH MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.26417 OF 2020(B)
PETITIONER:
RAJALAKSHMI
AGED 57 YEARS
D/O.BHASKARAN NAIR, MANJAPLAKKAL HOUSE, POONJAR
THEKKEKARA P.O., PIN-686582,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.BABU KUMAR
SRI.P.YADHU KUMAR
SRI.VISHNU BABU
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
ERATTUPETTA POLICE STATION, ERATTUPETTA P.O.,
KOTTAYAM-686581.
2 PADMAKUMAR,
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O.JANARDANA PANICKER, PLAKKAL HOUSE, POONJAR
THEKKEKARA P.O., PIN-686582, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
R1 BY SMT MABLE C KURIAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
R2 BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH T.JOHN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.26417 OF 2020 2
JUDGMENT
A dispute between neighbours concerning the user of a pathway has
led both the parties to approach the civil court. The petitioner secured an
interim order restraining the 2nd respondent from interfering with the user
of the pathway. She has also secured an order from the Munsiff directing
the 2nd respondent to remove the obstruction put up by him. However, in
violation to the directions issued by the learned Munsiff, the 2nd
respondent obstructed the pathway using bricks. The petitioner states that
she is prevented from accessing the panchayat road due to the acts of the
2nd respondent. In the said circumstances, the petitioner is stated to have
filed an application before the learned Munsiff seeking to initiate action
against the 2nd respondent for violating the order passed by the Court and
to remove the obstruction caused by the 2nd respondent. The said
application is pending and is not being taken up due to the restricted
functioning of the court. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner
has approached this Court seeking issuance of directions to the police to
remove the obstructions created by the 2nd respondent in the pathway
leading to the house of the petitioner.
2. I have heard Sri.Babu Kumar, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, Sri.Joseph T. John, the learned counsel appearing for the
2nd respondent and the learned Government Pleader. I have also perused
the records.
3. The records reveal that the 2nd respondent herein has
instituted O.S.No.27/2014 before the Munsiff Court, Erattupetta seeking to
interdict the petitioner and her family members from using a road for the
purpose of having a vehicular access. The petitioner herein has instituted
O.S.No.37/2014 seeking for a declaration that the petitioner has right for
vehicular traffic through the disputed road. A Commission was appointed
by the civil court and after considering the rival submissions, Ext.P3 and P4
orders were passed on 9.7.2015. The learned Munsiff went on to hold that
the contention of the 2nd respondent that he had absolute right over the
pathway was unsustainable and all that he was granted was a right to use
the pathway. The petitioner herein was granted an order of injunction
interdicting the 2nd respondent from causing any obstruction and she was
held entitled to to take heavy vehicles through the pathway. By Ext.P4
order, the 2nd respondent was ordered to remove the gate installed by him
within a period of one month and it was further ordered that if he failed to
do so, the petitioner could get the obstruction removed through the
process of court. The 2nd respondent was also restrained from erecting
any boundary wall obstructing the rights of the petitioner. It is also
undisputed that the petitioner has preferred Ext.P7 application before the
learned Munsiff under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the C.P.C. In the usual
course, as the matter is pending before the Civil Court, the parties ought
to have been directed to get their rights adjudicated. However, the records
reveal that in clear violation of the order of the civil court, obstructions
have been put up by the 2nd respondent preventing access of the
petitioner to the nearby panchayat road. The petitioner has also averred
that she has an aged mother, who requires hospitalization at times.
4. Having considered the entire facts, I am of the considered
opinion that there was no justification on the part of the 2nd respondent in
blatantly violating the order of the Civil Court and causing obstruction to
the user of the pathway. In that view of the matter, the following order is
issued, which shall be complied with in letter and spirit until the civil court
passes orders in Ext.P9 application filed by the petitioner.
a) The 2nd respondent shall strictly abide by the order
of the Civil Court and remove the obstructions caused by him
forthwith. This shall, however, be subject to the orders to be
passed by the Civil Court in the suit.
b) If the obstructions are not removed, the petitioner
may remove the obstructions at her expense. If the 2nd
respondent obstructs, necessary assistance shall be granted by
the police.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
ps
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PLAINT IN
O.S.NO.27/14 DATED 20.01.2014.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PLAINT IN
O.S.NO.37/2014 DATED 31.01.2014.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN
O.S.NO.27/2014 DATED 09.07.2015.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN
O.S.NO.37/2014 DATED 09.07.2015.
EXHIBIT P5 PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE ROAD-BLOCK
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE POLICE COMPLAINT
DATED 11.02.2020.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROSECUTION
PETITION DATED 20.02.2020.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT
DATED 27.02.2020.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION FILED
BEFORE THE CIVIL COURT SEEKING DIRECTION
TO THE POLICE TO IMPLEMENT THE COURT
ORDER.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
NIL
