Believers Church India vs The Superintendent of Police (Rural) and Others

R. Basant, J.—The petitioner, Believers Church, represented by its Secretary, has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to afford protection to the petitioner for the peaceful enjoyment of property and conduct of religious service in this Church at Kattakada at Thiruvananthapuram. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has secured Ext.P1 decree against respondent Nos. 3 and others.

It is the case of the petitioner that in view of the decree, the petitioner is entitled to the uninterrupted enjoyment of the property in question where the Church is situated. According to the petitioner, in the light of Ext.P1 decree, respondent No. 3 or respondent Nos. 4,5 and 7 who are acting under respondent No. 3 have no right whatsoever to obstruct the petitioner in the enjoyment of the property. Respondent No. 5 was also by name a party to Ext.P1 decree, it is further pointed out. Respondent No. 6 though originally arrayed as respondent, has subsequently been deleted from the array of parties.

The short prayer of the petitioner is that police protection may be afforded to the petitioner for enjoyment of the property covered by Ext.P1 decree and to conduct service uninterruptedly in that Church. Protection is claimed against respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and 7.

Respondent Nos. 3 and 5 have entered appearance. They have filed a counter affidavit. It is submitted that this petitioner is thoroughly misconceived. Ext.P1 decree is an ex-parte decree and an application to set aside ex-parte decree is pending before the Court which passed the ex-parte decree. The decree has not been executed. A perusal of Ext.P1 decree clearly shows that the decree entitles the petitioner to recover possession of the property from the defendants therein (including respondent Nos. 3 and 5).

In response to a pointed query from us, the learned Counsel for the petitioner as to whether Ext.P1 decree has been executed. It is admitted that, though execution petition is pending, the execution is not completed. The petitioner now asserts that the petitioner is already in possession of the property. How did he come in to possession of the property to recover which he has filed the suit and obtained a decree? No satisfactory explanation is offered.

We are in these circumstances, satisfied that the petitioner is not entitled for any order of police protection. We are not adverting in detail to the contentions of respondent Nos. 3 and 5 who submit that a suit filed by the third respondent for injunction against the petitioner and others, has been dismissed for non prosecution. Application to restore that suit is pending. Application to set aside Ext.P1 ex-parte decree is also pending. In these circumstances, it is certainly presumptuous on the part of the petitioner to claim police protection.

In the result, this petition is dismissed.