The court cannot intervene in matters already sub judice in civil courts; protection can be granted for safety but not for resolving property disputes.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking that respondents 2 and 3 be directed to afford her and the employees adequate protection, while she constructs a fence on the boundary of her property. The petitioner concedes that with respect to a pathway adjacent to her property, there is a civil dispute between respondents 4 to 6, which is pending before the competent Civil Court. She says that, however, there is absolutely no claim, even by respondents 4 to 6, with respect to the boundary of her property and therefore, that she is entitled to construct the fence along it. She says that since respondents 4 to 6 have forcibly obstructed the same, she was constrained to approach the Police Authorities, who, however, do not take any action, thus forcing her to come to this Court through this writ petition.

2. I have heard Smt.Preeja V.P., learned counsel for the petitioner; Smt.S.Lekha, representing Sri.Jayakrishnan, appearing for respondents 4 to 6 and Sri.E.C. Bineesh, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3.

3. Smt.S.Lekha vehemently opposed the submissions of the petitioner saying that, even as regards the boundary there are disputes. She asserted that, when a civil suit is pending between the parties, it was improper for the petitioner to have approached this Court seeking protection for constructing a fence. She thus prays that this writ petition be dismissed.

4. Smt.Jolima George, learned counsel appearing for respondents 7 to 9 submitted that the pathway referred above by the petitioner is one over which her clients are also having a right to use. She also, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be not allowed.

5. The learned Government Pleader, Sri.E.C.Bineesh, submitted that the Police have been keeping a close watch in the area in question and have ensured that there are no law and order issues and that the parties had not been allowed to breach peace in any manner.

6. When I consider the afore submissions, it is without contest that, as regards the pathway adjacent to the petitioner’s property, a civil suit is pending. The question whether the fencing now sought to be put up by the petitioner, is within her property or encroaching into the pathway, are not issues that this Court can consider or decide affirmatively, while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India . Since the suit is already pending, I fail to understand why the petitioner could not have approached the competent Civil Court for an order of injunction against respondents 4 to 6, if she is able to establish that she is putting up a fence solely on the boundary of her property.

In the above circumstances, I allow this writ petition, however, to the limited extent of directing the 2nd respondent to ensure that the petitioner's life is adequately and effectively protected from every threat and intimidation, including from respondents 4 to 6 and their men; and to ensure that law and order is maintained in the area in question without any breach in future.

Needless to say, I leave liberty to the petitioner and respondents 4 to 6 to invoke and pursue all their civil remedies before the competent court as they are advised.