Police protection in civil rights matters should be based on a final order under the Code of Civil Procedure, and courts should be reluctant to grant protection on the basis of ex parte injunction orders.

AR. LAKSHMANAN, Ag. C.J. :- Heard Mr. T. Krishnan Unni for the appellant, Mr. Chandrasekhar for the contesting respondents and the Government Pleader for the other respondents. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge in O.P. No. 11968 of 1999 dated 2-6-1999. The appellants are respondent Nos. 12, 13 and 14 in the original petition. The petitioners in the original petition, who are respondents 1 to 3 herein, filed the writ petition to direct respondents 1 and 2 in the original petition to grant the petitioners adequate police protection to enjoy their properties mentioned in Ext. P2 injunction order without any obstruction or interference by respondents 4 to 14.

2. It is submitted by counsel for respondents 1 to 3/ petitioners in the original petition that the refusal by the police to render assistance to enjoy their property is illegal when a Civil Court has passed orders in their favour and that the police has a duty to grant protection to them to enforce the injunction order against the appellants herein and that the appellants have no right to take law in their hands and resort to violence and commit criminal offence. In support of his above submission, Mr. Chandrasekhar relied on an earlier judgment of this Court in O.P. No. 2804 of 1999 wherein the appellants submitted that they had no intention to violate the order of injunction.

3. The learned Judge, without ordering notice to the appellants herein, straightway ordered police protection if there is violation of the injunction order. It is now represented by Mr. Krishnan Unni, learned counsel for the appellants that the judgment was rendered without hearing the appellants and that taking advantage of the injunction order, respondents 1 to 3 are proceeding further with construction unauthorisedly.

4. It is also submitted that the appellants have entered appearance before the Court below and contested the matter that the petitioners in the Original Petition have no title to or possession of the properties in dispute and that the suit has been filed raising a false claim and that the alleged title deeds will not take in the disputed property. It is also submitted that in the plaint the North-South and East-West measurements of properties are not shown and, instead, the petitioners have given only the total extent of the properties in the Schedule. In fact, a petition for issuance of commission for identifying the properties has also been filed and a Commissioner has also been appointed, who wanted the assistance of surveyor for identifying the properties. It is in the meanwhile that respondents 1 to 3 herein filed the present Original Petition seeking the relief of police protection. Taking advantage of the judgment in the original petition, respondents 1 to 3 herein have constructed a small house and compound wall and dug a well. It is also alleged that because of the impugned judgment, the appellants have now been dispossessed of the properties in their possession for so many years.

5. It is submitted by the appellants that the police have misinterpreted the scope of the impugned judgment and with their assistance and protection respondents 1 to 3 have dispossessed the appellants.

6. It is thus clear that the injunction order now produced along with the original petition is an ad interim order, that the contesting respondents/appellants herein have filed counter-affidavit in that matter and that the trial Court has already appointed a Commissioner to identify the properties and to file a plan and report.

7. The basis for seeking police protection from this Court is the ex parte ad interim injunction order passed by the Munsiff. The facts referred to above would disclose that the respondents 1 to 3 have obtained an order in the original petition without disclosing the entire facts and circumstances. Learned counsel for the appellants cited two decisions of this Court reported in Geroge Mirante v. State of Kerala (1990 (2) Ker LT 89)