P.A. Mohammed, J.@mdashThe Petitioner is the owner in absolute possession and enjoyment of 2.125 cents of land in survey number 2460/2/6 of Muttathara Village. Ext. P-1 is the copy of the sale dated 8th March 1994. The case of the Petitioner is that she has filed O.S. No. 688 of 1994 before the Munsiff''s Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Third Respondent herein was the sole Defendant in the suit. The second Respondent is the husband of the third Respondent. judgment in the above suit was delivered on 31st January 1997. The operative portion of the judgment is as follows:
O.S. No. 688/94 is allowed, restraining the Defendants from encroaching into the plaint schedule property and interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of the plant schedule property or committing any waste in the property or removing survey stones of land in the eastern boundary of the plaint schedule property.
The grievance of the Petitioner is that she did not get certified copy of the decree in the above suit though application submitted in time. Execution petition cannot therefore be presented before Court. However, third Respondent is not obeying the judgment passed by the Court below and is attempting to interfere with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. The Petitioner as by Ext. P-3 petition submitted before the first Respondent sought for polite aid for prevention of Respondents 2 and 3 from disobeying the judgment in O.S. No. 688 of 1994.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and also the Respondents 2 and 3. I also heard Government Pleader for first Respondent.
3. Learned Counsel for Respondents 2 and 3 submitted before me that Respondents 2 and 3 are not interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the land covered by the judgment in O.S. No. 688 of 1994. His case is that the land covered by the judgment in O.S. 688/94 is Government property. His further case is that third Respondent is aggrieved by the judgment of the Munsiff''s Court and therefore proposes to file appeal against the said judgment. He also submits that third Respondent has not received certified copy of the judgment and decree. The correctness or otherwise of the judgment passed by the learned Munsiff will have to be decided in the appeal proposed to be filed by the third Respondent.
4. In the meanwhile the judgment passed by the Munsiff shall not be allowed to remain in vacuum and Respondents 2 and 3 shall not be allowed to disobey the judgment. What is required in this case is obedience to judgment passed by the learned Munsiff in O.S. 688/94 upto the period when the appellate Court decides the matter, either permanently or temporarily. The question is how obedience to the judgment can be enforced in the aforesaid situation. Of course, such obedience can be enforced only by resorting to police power and in such circumstances police have the power to see that the judgment of the Munsiff''s Court is obeyed by all parties to the suit. Police shall see by taking appropriate measures that the judgment of the learned Munsiff in O.S. 688/94 is obeyed by the parties. Of course, this is not a permanent order to be enforced all time. This order will have the force till a decision is taken on the appeal against the judgment in O.S. 688/94 either interim or final. I therefore direct the first Respondent to take all measures to see that the judgment of the Munsiff''s Court, Thiruvananthapuram in O.S. 688/94 is obeyed by Respondents 2 and 3. The Original Petition is disposed of as above.
