T.Sumangala vs Remavathi V.V
2021 Latest Caselaw 19371 Ker

  OP(C).1283/21                             1

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 25TH BHADRA, 1943
                         OP(C) NO. 1283 OF 2021
 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 48/2021 OF MUNSIFF COURT,
                           THALASSERY, KANNUR
PETITIONER/S:
          T.SUMANGALA
          AGED 53 YEARS
          W/O DEVARAJAN .P.C,
          RESIDING AT VELLORE VEETIL, P.O.IRIVERI, KANNUR-
          670613.

            BY ADVS.
            K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN
            R.SREEHARI


RESPONDENT/S:
    1     REMAVATHI V.V
          AGED 56 YEARS
          W/O LATE MANOHARAN,
          HOUSEWIFE,
          RESIDING AT SHAMIL NIVAS, P.O.IRIVERI, KANNUR-
          670613.

    2       RAJANI DEVARAJAN
            AGED 48 YEARS
            W/O DEVARAJAN.V.V.,
            RESIDING AT DEVAKI NIVAS,
            P.O.IRIVERI, KANNUR-670613.

            BY ADVS.
            M.K.SUMOD
            ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH
            K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH)


     THIS     OP    (CIVIL)     HAVING   COME      UP    FOR    ADMISSION   ON
16.09.2021,       THE   COURT    ON   THE       SAME    DAY    DELIVERED    THE
FOLLOWING:
    OP(C).1283/21                      2




                             V.G.ARUN, J.
              -----------------------------------------------
                     O.P(C).No. 1283 of 2021
              -----------------------------------------------
          Dated this the 16th day of September, 2021

                             JUDGMENT

Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.48 of 2021 on the files of

the Munsiff's Court, Thalassery. The suit is filed for permanent

prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants - respondents

herein - and their men from trespassing into the plaint schedule

property or causing obstruction in constructing the house building

and conveyance of building materials to the plaint schedule

property, from interfering with the peaceful possession and

enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and committing waste

or damages therein. Along with the suit, the petitioner moved an

application for interim injunction and the same was allowed vide

Exhibit P4 order, restraining the respondents by way of temporary

injunction from trespassing into the plaint schedule property,

committing waste therein, obstructing the construction of the

house in the plaint schedule property and from blocking the

conveyance of building materials to the house situated in the

property. According to the petitioner, in spite of the injunction

order, on 26.4.2021, the respondents obstructed the lorry carrying

building materials to the petitioner's property. The petitioner

lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional Police Station and filed

Exhibit P7 application before the Munsiff's Court seeking Police

assistance for implementing the injunction order. The respondents

filed Exhibit P8 counter statement denying the allegation and

further pointing out that in another suit, O.S.No.358 of 2016, filed

by the petitioner for restraining the construction of residential

house in her property by the respondents, a Commission Report is

filed, stating that the petitioner is in illegal occupation of one cent

belonging to the respondents. According to the respondents,

petitioner is constructing the house over the one cent belonging to

her also. By Exhibit P9 order, the trial court dismissed the

application for Police assistance. Hence, the original petition.

2. Sri.Rajesh Sukumaran K., learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that, having granted an injunction order, the court

below is bound to enforce the order also. It is pointed out that till

date, the respondents have neither challenged nor sought to

vacate the injunction order. On the other hand, they are flouting

the order by preventing the vehicles from reaching the petitioner's

property. It is submitted that even though the injunction order was

granted in March, 2021, the petitioner could not carry out any

work thereafter, due to the highhanded action of the respondents.

It is contended that the dispute regarding identity is raised to

mislead the court and even if there is any such dispute, that has to

be decided in the suit, till such time the respondents are bound to

abide by the injunction order.

3. Sri.M.K.Sumod, learned counsel for the respondents

denied the allegation that the respondents had obstructed the

vehicles carrying goods to the petitioner's property and contended

that an order directing Police aid to enforce the interim injunction

order, in exercise of the power under Section 151 CPC, can be

issued only when it is absolutely necessary. Learned counsel relied

on the decision in Mammoo v. Krishnan [1978 KLT 901] to

buttress the contention.

4. Going by the averments, the application seeking Police aid

is filed based on a solitary incident, which is alleged to have taken

place on 26.4.2021. No doubt, in appropriate cases, the court can

exercise its inherent power to ensure compliance of order. As held

by this Court in Mammoo (supra), such power can be exercised

only for the purpose of meeting the ends of justice and to prevent

abuse of process of court. In any case, Police aid cannot be

ordered based on a solitary incident, which the respondents have

denied. On the other hand, if the respondents are obstructing the

vehicles transporting goods to the petitioner's property, she can

file a complaint before the Police. If such a complaint is filed, the

Police is duty bound to enquire into the allegations and if

warranted, to take appropriate preventive measures. Being so, as

rightly found by the trial court, there cannot be an omnibus

direction to the Police to keep vigil throughout so as to ensure that

the petitioner's construction is carried out without hindrance.

In the result, the original petition is dismissed, leaving it open

for the petitioner to approach the Police, if the respondents

obstruct the movement of vehicles and construction of the house.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN, JUDGE

vgs

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1283/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS.48/2021 FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, THALASSERY.

Exhibit P2 COPY OF THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, I.A. 2/2021 IN O.S.48/2021.

Exhibit P3 COPY OF THE CUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN IN I.A. 2/2021 IN O S NO.48/2021.

Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27/03/2021 IN I.A. 2/2021 IN O S NO. 48/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, THALASSERY.

Exhibit P5 COPY OF THE INTERLLCUTORY APPLICATION, I.A. 7/2021 IN I.A 2/2021 IN O.S.48/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, THALASSERY.

Exhibit P6 COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN IN I.A. 7/2021 IN I.A. 2/2021 IN O.S. 48/2021.

Exhibit P7 CARBON COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12/07/2021 IN I.A. 7/2021 IN I.A 2/2021 IN O S NO.

48/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, THALASSERY.