Bhagirathyamma v. Vijayan

K. Abraham Mathew, J.:— Petitioner is the plaintiff in OS.25 of 2011 on the file of Munsiff Court, Peermade. On the application filed by him for a temporary injunction the learned Munsiff has restrained the respondents from trespassing into the plaint schedule property or interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment thereof by the petitioner. The order was confirmed by the appellate court and this court. She filed Ext.P8 application to give her police assistance complaining that the respondents did not allow her to enter the property. By Ext.P12 order the learned Munsiff has dismissed it. This is challenged.

2. Heard.

3. The petitioner has not filed an application Under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC, or an application to enforce the order of injunction which can be enforced like a decree in view of Section 36 CPC. There is no explanation for it. From the address given in the O.P it is seen that none of the respondents reside in the locality in which the property is situated. But the learned counsel for the respondents submit that, in fact, respondents 4 and 6 reside in the same locality. There is every reason to doubt the bona fidies of the application filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents left the place after locking the door of the building and they are unable to enter the building. If that is true, their remedy is to file an application before the learned Munsiff to depute an ameen to break open the lock in the presence of a commissioner. The facts of the case do not justify directing police to enforce the order of injunction. The learned Munsiff has rightly dismissed the application.

4. In the result, this O.P is dismissed.