Obligation to comply with civil court orders is enforceable, and violations warrant police assistance for compliance and protection of legal rights.

JUDGMENT

A dispute between neighbours concerning the user of a pathway has led both the parties to approach the civil court. The petitioner secured an interim order restraining the 2nd respondent from interfering with the user of the pathway. She has also secured an order from the Munsiff directing the 2nd respondent to remove the obstruction put up by him. However, in violation to the directions issued by the learned Munsiff, the 2nd respondent obstructed the pathway using bricks. The petitioner states that she is prevented from accessing the panchayat road due to the acts of the 2nd respondent. In the said circumstances, the petitioner is stated to have filed an application before the learned Munsiff seeking to initiate action against the 2nd respondent for violating the order passed by the Court and to remove the obstruction caused by the 2nd respondent. The said application is pending and is not being taken up due to the restricted functioning of the court. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of directions to the police to remove the obstructions created by the 2nd respondent in the pathway leading to the house of the petitioner.

2. I have heard Sri.Babu Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Joseph T. John, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and the learned Government Pleader. I have also perused the records.

3. The records reveal that the 2nd respondent herein has instituted O.S.No.27/2014 before the Munsiff Court, Erattupetta seeking to interdict the petitioner and her family members from using a road for the purpose of having a vehicular access. The petitioner herein has instituted O.S.No.37/2014 seeking for a declaration that the petitioner has right for vehicular traffic through the disputed road. A Commission was appointed by the civil court and after considering the rival submissions, Ext.P3 and P4 orders were passed on 9.7.2015. The learned Munsiff went on to hold that the contention of the 2nd respondent that he had absolute right over the pathway was unsustainable and all that he was granted was a right to use the pathway. The petitioner herein was granted an order of injunction interdicting the 2nd respondent from causing any obstruction and she was held entitled to to take heavy vehicles through the pathway. By Ext.P4 order, the 2nd respondent was ordered to remove the gate installed by him within a period of one month and it was further ordered that if he failed to do so, the petitioner could get the obstruction removed through the process of court. The 2nd respondent was also restrained from erecting any boundary wall obstructing the rights of the petitioner. It is also undisputed that the petitioner has preferred Ext.P7 application before the learned Munsiff under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the C.P.C. In the usual course, as the matter is pending before the Civil Court, the parties ought to have been directed to get their rights adjudicated. However, the records reveal that in clear violation of the order of the civil court, obstructions have been put up by the 2nd respondent preventing access of the petitioner to the nearby panchayat road. The petitioner has also averred that she has an aged mother, who requires hospitalization at times.

4. Having considered the entire facts, I am of the considered opinion that there was no justification on the part of the 2nd respondent in blatantly violating the order of the Civil Court and causing obstruction to the user of the pathway. In that view of the matter, the following order is issued, which shall be complied with in letter and spirit until the civil court passes orders in Ext.P9 application filed by the petitioner. a) The 2nd respondent shall strictly abide by the order of the Civil Court and remove the obstructions caused by him forthwith. This shall, however, be subject to the orders to be passed by the Civil Court in the suit.

b) If the obstructions are not removed,