Point of Law - Where there is flagrant violation of the orders of the execution court and the alternate remedy found to be not efficacious, then police protection could be ordered.

JUDGMENT :

Alexander Thomas, J.

The judgment rendered on 18.5.2022 in the WP(C).No.7271/2022 is the subject matter of challenge in the instant intra court appeal filed under Sec.5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958.

2. The appellant herein is contesting respondent No.4 in the WP(C). R-1 herein is the writ petitioner and official respondents 2 to 4 in the W.A. are official respondents 1 to 3 in the WP(C).

3. Heard Sri.Dinesh R.Shenoy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in the W.A., Sri.Raju Joseph, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondent No.1 in the W.A. (writ petitioner) and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for official respondents 2 to 4 in the W.A.

4. The prayers in the instant Writ Petition (Civil) WP(C).No.7271/2022 are as follows:

"i) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or order or direction, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner to evict the illegal trespassers to the property owned by the petitioner.

ii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or order or direction, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to register crime against respondent No.4 and their men for unlawful trespass and criminal intimidation and also for taking law into their hands.

iii) Issue such other reliefs that may be deemed just and proper in the interest of justice."

5. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, has rendered the impugned judgment on 18.5.2022 disposing of the above WP(C) with the finding that the civil disputes between the writ petitioner and R-4 in the WP(C) (appellant herein) have been going on for quite a long time, and the same has been finalized as per Ext.P-2 judgment of the trial court, as confirmed by Ext.P-3 judgment of this Court in the Regular First Appeal, and further that the original suit filed by R-4 in the WP(C) (appellant herein) has been dismissed, and the counter claim filed by the writ petitioner has been substantially allowed by the grant of mandatory injunction. Further, it was also found, that the decree has been subjected to execution process, and the execution process has been duly completed, and the possession of the property was duly delivered to the writ petitioner as evident from Ext.P-4 delivery chit proceedings of the Execution Court. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge has held, that the disputes between the parties have already been duly finalized in the manner known to law, by the judgment and decree of both the trial court and as affirmed by the appellate court, and the execution process has also been duly completed by Ext.P-4. Therefore, the action on the part of R-4 in the WP(C) (appellant herein) in again trespassing into the property would amount to defeating the due process of civil litigation already finalized and executed in the manner known to law, and hence the learned Single Judge has ordered, that the respondent Station House Officer (SHO, Ernakulam Central Station) shall provide adequate police protection to the writ petitioner to carry out the directions contained in Ext.P-2 & P-3 judgments in the above concluded civil litigation. It is this judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge disposing the WP(C) as above, that is under challenge in the instant intra court appeal.

6. A brief reference to the facts of the case would be pertinent. Contesting respondent No.1 in the W.A. will be referred for convenience as the writ petitioner and R-4 in the WP(C) will be referred for convenience as the writ appellant. The writ petitioner (Sri.Narasimha Shenoy) is the brother of the writ appellant (Smt.Seetha Mohanan). Their father had altogether 6 children including the above parties. According to the writ appellant, the father is said to have executed a Registered Will in respect of the bequest of his property on 9.12.1983 as per Ext.P-1. Later, the father Sri.Narayana Shenoy, died on 1.11.1985. The writ appellant has taken up the case that the bequest of the subject property covered by Ext.P-1