Kerala High Court

Anil George vs Fr. John V. John on 25 August, 2022

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
     THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 3RD BHADRA, 1944
                        OP(C) NO. 1618 OF 2022
               OS 500/2019 OF MUNSIFF COURT,MUVATTUPUZHA
PETITIONER:

          ANIL GEORGE
          AGED 54 YEARS
          S/O. N. GEORGE, EDAPPALAKKATTU HOUSE,
          PIRAMADOM P.O., PAMPAKUDA VIA
          PIN - 686667

          BY ADVS.
          K.C.ELDHO
          S.BIJILAL
          EBEE ANTONY
          ARUNDHATHY K. ALIAS
          ALMAJITHA FATHIMA



RESPONDENTS:

    1     FR. JOHN V. JOHN
          AGED 57 YEARS
          S/O. JOHN MATHEW,
          RESIDING AT VADAKKEMUTTAPPILLIL HOUSE, PAMPAKUDA PO,
          ONAKKUR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, KOOTHATTUKULAM
          PIN - 686667

    2     FR. SIBI MATHEW VARGHESE
          AGED 32 YEARS
          S/O. M. M. VARGHESE, RESIDING AT TRINITY RETIREMENT
          HOUSE, PASSIONAGE, KOLENCHERY, PIN - 682311

    3     FR. REJI PAUL
          AGED 39 YEARS
          S/O. PAUL, RESIDING AT VETTUKATTIL HOUSE, PANCODE KARA,
          IYKARANADU VILLAGE, PANCODE PO, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK,
          PIN - 686667

    4     BABY VARGHESE
          AGED 66 YEARS
          S/O. VARGHESE, RESIDING AT KANNEKATTU HOUSE, MEMURY
          KARA, MEMURY VILLAGE, PAMPAKUDA PO, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK,
 OP(C) NO. 1618 OF 2022           2

          PIN - 686667

    5     BABY VARGHESE
          AGED 55 YEARS
          S/O. VARGHESE, AND RESIDING AT KUTTATTUKUDIYIL
          HOUSE, KAYANADU KARA, MARADY VILLAGE, PIRAMADOM PO,
          MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, PIN - 686667

    6     ABRAHAM K.V.
          AGED 68 YEARS
          S/O. VARGHESE, KANNEKKATTU HOUSE, MARADY VILLAGE,
          MUVATUPUZHA TALUK, PIN - 686667

    7     JOY M.A.
          AGED 63 YEARS
          S/O. ULAHANNAN, MEPPARAMBATHU HOUSE, ONAKKOOR
          VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686667

    8     ELIAS A. K.
          AGED 49 YEARS
          S/O. ULAHANNAN, MEPPARAMBATHU HOUSE, ONAKKOOR
          VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686667

    9     GIRI CHERIAN
          AGED 48 YEARS
          S/O. CHERIAN, VETTIKKATHADATHIL HOUSE, MARADY
          VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686667

   10     PAUL MATHEW
          AGED 34 YEARS
          S/O. BABY K PAUL, KIZHAKKEDATU HOUSE, ONAKKOOR
          VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686667

   11     BINU ABRAHAM
          AGED 48 YEARS
          S/O. ABRAHAM K. P. KANNEKATTTU HOUSE, ONAKKOOR
          VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686667

   12     BABY PAULOSE
          AGED 68 YEARS
          S/O. PAULOSE, KURUTTAMPURATHU HOUSE, NORTH
          PIRAMADAM POST, PAMPAKUDA, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK,
          PIN - 686667

   13     ROY K. C
          AGED 57 YEARS
          S/O. K. P. CHACKO, KADUVAKKATTU HOUSE, NORTH
          PIRAMADAM POST, PAMPAKUDA, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK,
 OP(C) NO. 1618 OF 2022                    3

             PIN - 686667

   14        THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
             GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

   15        THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND STATE POLICE
             CHIEF, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
             PIN - 695001

   16        THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
             CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030

   17        THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
             ERNAKULAM RURAL, ALUVA , PIN - 683101

   18        DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
             MUVATTUPUZHA , PIN - 686661

   19        THE STATION HOUSE OFFICE,
             KOOTHATTUKULAM , PIN - 686662

              SRI.S SREEKUMAR

              SMT. SYLAJA S.L. GOVERNMENT PLEADER


     THIS     OP   (CIVIL)    HAVING   COME      UP    FOR    ADMISSION   ON
25.08.2022,     THE   COURT    ON   THE       SAME    DAY    DELIVERED    THE
FOLLOWING:
 OP(C) NO. 1618 OF 2022            4




            Dated this the 25st day of August, 2022



                           JUDGMENT

The petitioner assails the order in I.A.No.3998/2019

in O.S.No.500/2019(Ext.P9) passed by the Court of the

Munsiff, Muvattupuzha.

2. The concise case of the petitioner in the original

petition is that: the petitioner is the additional 4 th

defendant in the suit filed by the respondents 1 and 2,

seeking a decree of injunction. The petitioner has filed

Ext.P2 written statement in the suit. The respondents 1

and 2 have filed Ext.P3 application, to direct the

respondents 15 and 16 to provide adequate police

protection to them for the enforcement of the order of

temporary injunction dated 18.11.2019 passed by the

court below in I.A. No.3268/2019. The petitioner has

resisted the application by filing Ext.P4 counter affidavit.

The suit has been adjourned from time to time due to the

recalcitrance of the respondents 1 and 2, to proceed with

the trial. The petitioner was constrained to approach this

Court and file O.P.(C)No.1260/2022 for the expeditious

disposal of the suit. This Court, by Ext.P7 judgment, has

directed the court below to dispose of the suit and all

pending applications with an outer time limit of six

months. The petitioner has produced Ext.P7 judgment

before the court below with Ext.P8 memo. Immediately,

the court below has passed the impugned Ext.P9 order.

Ext.P9 order has been passed without considering Ext.P4

counter affidavit filed by the petitioner to Ext.P3

application. Ext.P9 is erroneous, perverse and improper.

Hence, the original petition.

3. Heard; Sri,K.C. Eldho, the learned Counsel

appearing for the petitioner and Sri.S.Sreekumar, the

learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 1

and 2 and the learned Government Pleader appearing for

the respondents 14 to 19.

4. Sri. K.C. Eldho, argued that even though the

respondents 1 and 2 have sought for police aid to

implement the order in I.A. No.3268/2019, the said order

has not attained finality. The petitioner has challenged

the said order by filing CMA No.33/2019. Even though

the appeal was dismissed, the petitioner has now filed

Review Petition No.13/2020 before the Appellate Court,

which is pending consideration. It is at this juncture, the

respondents 1 and 2 have pressed for implementation of

the order passed in I.A.No. 3268/2019. Now by the

passing of the impugned order the review petition will be

rendered infructuous. Moreover, the court below has not

adverted to any of the contentions raised by the

petitioner in Ext.P4 counter affidavit filed to Ext.P3

application. Hence, the impugned order may be set

aside.

5. Sri.S.Sreekumar, vehemently countered the above

submission by arguing that the order of temporary

injunction was passed by the court below as early as on

18.11.2019. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the

order before the Appellate Court. Now, he is said to have

filed a review petition. There is no order of stay

interdicting the interim injunction. It is only because the

petitioner and other defendants are flouting the order of

temporary injunction, that the respondents 1 and 2 were

constrained to file I.A.No.3998/2019, seeking police aid to

enforce the interlocutory order of injunction. He relied

on the decision of this Court in Johnson Kurakose v.

Fr.Thomas Paul Ramban and others [2019(1) KHC

31], wherein this Court has categorically held that the

orders of temporary injunction passed by the civil courts

have to be implemented by the civil courts themselves

and the same cannot be left unattended. He submitted

that the original petition is veiled attempt to flout

temporary injunction order. The suit was listed for

evidence on 16.11.2020. Then, the petitioner filed O.P.

(C)No.1703/2020 before this Court, and the trial was

adjourned. Again the suit was listed on 01.09.2021 and

06.10.2021, but the petitioner got the trial adjourned.

The oblique intention of the petitioner is only to

procrastinate the final determination of the suit. There

is no bonafides in the original petition, which may be

dismissed.

6. The point is whether there is any error or illegality

in Ext.P9 order passed by the court below.

7. The suit was instituted in the year 2019. The

court below has passed an order of temporary injunction

in I.A.No.3268/2019 on 18.11.2019. Undisputedly, the

petitioner's challenge was declined by the Appellate

Court by its judgment in CMA No.33/2019. Even though

the petitioner contends that he has filed R.P.No.13/2020,

to review the judgment, there is no order interdicting the

implementation of the order in I.A.No.3268/19.

8. The respondents 1 and 2 have filed

I.A.No.3998/2019 to see that the order passed in I.A.

No.3268/2019 is implemented its letter and spirit The

petitioner has opposed the application by filing Ext.P4

counter affidavit, inter alia, contending that the order

may not be implemented till a final decision is taken in

R.P No.13/2020. But the court below has passed the

impugned Ext.P9 order.

9. The Honourable Supreme Court in Meera

Chauhan v. Harsh Bishnoi and Others [(2007)12 SCC

201] observed thus:-

" At the same time, it is also well settled that when parties violate order of injunction or stay order or act in violation of the said order the court can, by exercising its inherent power, put back the parties in the same position as they stood prior to issuance of the injunction order or give appropriate direction to the police authority to render aid to the aggrieved parties for the due and proper implementation of the orders passed in the suit and also order police protection for implementation of such order"

10. The above principal has again been reiterated by

the Division Bench of this Court in Shaji M.K.and

Another v. State of Kerala and others[2018(3) KHC

69].

"15. Therefore, where there is disobedience or breach of an order of temporary injunction passed by the Civil Court under Order XXXIX R1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the remedy open to the plaintiff/applicant is either to apply that Court under Order XXXIX R2A of the Code seeking an order to attach the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach and for an order to detain such person in civil prison for a term not exceeding three months. In appropriate cases, the plaintiff/applicant can invoke the inherent powers of the Civil Court under S.151 of the Code, which includes the power to grant police protection to secure compliance of the order of temporary injunction. When there are adequate provisions under the Code which enables the Civil Court to enforce and implement its orders, the

plaintiff/applicant cannot approach this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India seeking police protection to secure compliance of the order of temporary injunction."

11. It is following the ratio decidendi in the above

authoritative precedents and as the petitioner and other

defendants are flouting the order of interlocutory

injunction, that the respondents 1 and 2 filed

I.A.No.3998/2019 to ensure that the defendants don't

flout the order in I.A. No.3268/2019. Ultimately, it is the

majesty of the court and its orders that have to upheld

and enforced.

Going by the pleading and materials on record, I do

not find any error in Ext.P9 order warranting interference

by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India. The original petition fails and is hence