A.Hariprasad, J.

Petitioner seeks police protection with the following prayers:

"(i) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to render adequate and sufficient police protection to the petitioner, its employees, etc; for their peaceful enjoyment and possession of its 10.800 cents of property situated in Sy.No.481/1 of Nadama Village covered by Exhibit P1 sale deed, and ensure that the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property by the petitioner is not obstructed in any manner whatsoever.

(ii) Pass such other orders that this Honourable Court deems fit to pass in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. Facts, stated shortly, are as follows: Petitioner is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner had purchased 10.800 cents of property in Survey No.481/1 of Nadama Village as per Ext.P1 document from Kunnarayil Balan. Ext.P2 is the copy of basic tax receipt and Ext.P3 is the possession certificate in respect of the said property. Ext.P4 is the encumbrance certificate. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents 4 to 6, who are the legal heirs of the assignor, are causing trouble in fixing the boundary of Ext.P1 property. Respondents 4 to 6 had filed O.S.No.691 of 2009 before the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam seeking a declaration that they had acquired title over the property by prescription and a prohibitory injunction against the petitioner. As per Ext.P5 judgment, the trial court had dismissed the suit. Respondents 4 to 6 had taken up the matter in appeal in A.S.No.63 of 2011 before the Sub Court, Ernakulam. The lower appellate court dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court. Ext.P6 is the judgment of the lower appellate court. Case of the petitioner is that after dismissal of the appeal, it approached the Taluk Surveyor for fixation of boundary by filing Ext.P7 petition. Ext.P8 is the notice issued by the Taluk Surveyor directing the petitioner to clear the wild growths and weeds for measuring out the property. When that was attempted to be done, the respondents 4 to 6 obstructed. Hence it filed Ext.P9 petition before the Sub Inspector of Police, Maradu seeking police protection. Police did not render any assistance and hence the petitioner has approached this Court.

3. Respondents 4 to 6 appeared and filed a counter statement opposing the reliefs prayed for. According to the respondents, the writ petition itself is not maintainable. It is also submitted that they have preferred a second appeal against the appellate judgment and decree. The second appeal is pending before this Court. It is also the contention of the respondents that the petitioner has no right or possession over Ext.P1 property. Respondents further contended that the writ petition for police protection is filed as a short cut for fixing the boundary in respect of the disputed properties without taking recourse to a proper remedy.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the contesting party respondents. Learned Government Pleader is also heard.

5. Following legal conundrums arise for determination: Whether the writ petition is maintainable? Was it obligatory for the petitioner to approach a civil court with a suit for fixation of boundary and other incidental reliefs?

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Ext.P5, the judgment of the trial court and Ext.P6, the first appellate judgment would show that the respondents have no right or possession over the property. It is therefore contended that the petitioner is entitled to get the reliefs claimed.

7. Per contra, the party respondents would contend that they have preferred a second appeal against Ext.P6 judgment and that is pending. That apart, Exts.P5 and P6 would not enable the petitioner to approach this Court with a petition of this kind since there is no positive finding in its favour.

8. It is trite that questions relating to title, possession, right to enjoy an immovable p