Judgment :- 1. The dispute between the parties is essentially one of a civil nature and perhaps I could have summarily disposed of this O.P., but I am proposing to deal with it on the merits only because petitions of this nature appear to be quite common these days and therefore it would be profitable to define the limits of discretionary exercise of the power of this court in such matters. Before I set down my views on the principle involved let me deal with the case before me. 2. Having obtained an order for injunction, Ext. P1, from the District Judge's Court, Thodupuzha, restraining the 3rd respondent herein and others from enclosing the space of 3 feet touching the northern wall of the petitioner's building and constructing the shade "abutting over the petitioner's roof", the petitioner came to this court complaining that the 3rd respondent, who is highly influential as Chairman of a political party, is misconducting himself by violating the letter and spirit of the injunction order. It is said that the petitioner approached the police and because of the indifferent inaction by the police, he was driven to this court. 3. As it is there is an order of the civil court in force and the 3rd respondent has no case that he has violated the order. It has not been established that the 3 feet way has been enclosed nor has it been shown that any shade has been constructed "abutting over the petitioner's roof". Certainly the petitioner cannot expect the police to exercise themselves because of apprehensions of the petitioner in a matter of this nature. To dispose of this case it is sufficient to record the submission of counsel for the 3rd respondent that he does not propose to violate the injunction order. If, despite such assurance and the order of injunction, there is violation, it would be time enough then for the petitioner to seek appropriate relief. Hence as it is no direction is called for. 4. Questions of possession, right to enjoy property or easements without obstruction, nuisances and similar other matters are best adjudged by a civil court. These are not certainly matters for the police to sit in judgment upon. Hence as it is no direction is called for. 4. Questions of possession, right to enjoy property or easements without obstruction, nuisances and similar other matters are best adjudged by a civil court. These are not certainly matters for the police to sit in judgment upon. The rule of law in this country is likely to be jeopardised if policemen are to decide whether they should recognise rights of easements, rights of possession and other similar civil rights and use their force to help one party or other in whose favour they reach a decision. Resort to this court seeking police assistance in matters where decisions on such questions are called for would certainly be ill-advised. To recognise policemen as competent to decide such disputes would be giving them powers which are capable of abuse. If there is a genuine dispute between the parties that has to be resolved by the civil courts. If the police feel that there is a genuine dispute which should normally call for decision by an appropriate court, they will be right in refusing to interfere. 5. From the number of petitions that are filed in this court complaining that despite orders of injunction police are ineffective, it would appear that the civil courts which grant orders of injunction are impotent in the matter of enforcing them. If a court passes an order of injunction, it has powers to see that such injunction is respected. The Civil Procedure Code empowers the court to make an erring party comply with the order of the court and to take effective action against infringement or violation of an order of injunction passed by the court by even keeping the offender in civil prison so as to compel him to comply. Therefore it would certainly be inadvisable for this court to embark upon the exercise of issuing directions to police officers, whenever some order or other is obtained from a court, to enforce such order. More so, when, as it quite happens, the orders are ex parte interim orders, for by their very nature they are liable to be modified or reversed or confirmed when the other party appears and contests. Even injunction orders passed after hearing both sides are liable to be reversed in appeal. More so, when, as it quite happens, the orders are ex parte interim orders, for by their very nature they are liable to be modified or reversed or confirmed when the other party appears and contests. Even injunction orders passed after hearing both sides are liable to be reversed in appeal. The long and short of it is that though this court is not without power to issue directions in a very appropriate case of inaction by the police in such matters the resort to this court as a matter of course would be unjustified. So far as the case on hand is concerned I have indicated that the stand taken by the 3rd respondent is sufficient answer and in view of this there is no scope for complaint on the part of the petitioner. Disposed of accordingly. No costs.