Back
2011 Supreme(Online)(KER) 27956
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, K.HARILAL, JJ
P V SOUDAMINI – Appellant
Versus
THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ANR – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 33604/2011
The execution of prohibitory injunctions and related protective measures should be pursued through the execution court rather than through writ petitions.
Headnote:
Protection - Writ Petition - N/A - The court directed the petitioner to seek enforcement of a prohibitory injunction from the execution court instead of granting immediate police protection, indicating that the execution court is the appropriate forum for such matters.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought police protection for her properties despite having a decree of prohibitory injunction against party respondents, claiming threats made by them prevented her from accessing her property.
Finding of the Court:
The court observed that enforcement of the injunction should be pursued in the execution court, and that court could also address any threats to the petitioner’s safety as needed.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to police protection despite the existing injunction and claims of threats from the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that enforcement of injunctions should occur through execution courts where appropriate assessment of security needs can be undertaken.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, directing the petitioner to approach the execution court.
J U D G M E N T
Pius C. Kuriakose, J The petitioner a lady has filed this writ petition seeking directions for police protection for the peaceful enjoyment of her properties and also for her life and limbs. According to the petitioner she has secured a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against the party respondents and that decree was ultimately confirmed by this Court also. Notwithstanding the decree, the petitioner is not in a position to go over to the property on account of the threats of the party respondents.
2. Sri.T.K.Venugopalan, the learned counsel for the party respondents submitted that it is not correct to say that the permanent prohibitory injunction decree has been passed in favour of the petitioner and that the entire civil disputes has been fully and finally settled. He would read over to us the operative portion of the certain passage on the judgment and submit that right of the party respondents to seek separate possession has been reserved.
3. Having considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar as well as the pleadings raised by the parties, we are of the view that the protection directions which the petitioner has sought for may have to be sought for by her from the execution court as she asserts that there is a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction in her favour finalised by this Court in second appeal.
4. We relegate the petitioner to the execution court. It is open to the petitioner to seek enforcement of the injunction decree and the execution court can always issue directions to the police so as to ensure that the decree is enforced and obeyed.
5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the situation is that the petitioner is unable to go over to the property. If the petitioner is able to go on to the property she will need protection for life and limbs. The execution court can look into this aspect also.
With the above observations we dispose of this writ petition observing that at the moment there is no imminent threat for the life and limbs of the petitioner.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K.HARILAL JUDGE ab
