JUDGMENT : K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J. 1. The petitioner is before us claiming police protection against the illegal acts perpetrated by respondents 3, 4, 5. The party respondents are said to be constantly interfering with the peaceful possession of a property owned by the petitioner and that too by repeatedly flouting the orders of the Civil Court. The petitioner purchased the subject property as per Ext.P1 title deed. The tax receipt is seen at Ext.P2 and the Possession Certificate is seen at Ext.P3. 2. The 3rd respondent filed a suit (O.S. No. 443 of 2007) claiming title over the property. The petitioner had filed a counter claim in the above suit. Even when the suit was pending there was an injunction order in favour of the petitioner and by Ext.P7, the learned Munsiff had directed police protection to enable the petitioner to take yield from Plaint B schedule property. Eventually by Ext.P4 ex-parte decree dated 17.10.2012, the suit was dismissed and the counter claim allowed. The petitioner approached the Execution Court. The 4th respondent, the rd respondent's husband, filed an application for dismissing the execution petition on the ground that he was living in the neighbouring property (A Schedule); over which he asserted title and contented that he is not a party to the suit and he is estranged from his wife who is the judgment debtor. By Ext.P5 order dated 18.03.2017, it was found that the 4th respondent had not produced any materials to show independent possession over Plaint A schedule property; which was actually owned by his wife. The bone of contention was with respect to B Schedule property as we saw herein before; over which the petitioner now holds a valid decree, on the basis of her title and even enjoyed an injunction in her favour during the pendency of the suit and the counter claim. The contention raised by the 4th respondent that he was estranged from his wife was specifically negatived. The application to dismiss the Execution Petition on the ground of separate possession as claimed by the husband of the 3rd respondent was declined by the Execution Court. An appeal filed by the 4th respondent also stood dismissed for non- prosecution, as is seen from Ext.P6. 3. The application to dismiss the Execution Petition on the ground of separate possession as claimed by the husband of the 3rd respondent was declined by the Execution Court. An appeal filed by the 4th respondent also stood dismissed for non- prosecution, as is seen from Ext.P6. 3. Later the learned Munsiff, in the Execution Petition deputed a Commissioner to put up a barbed fencing along the boundary of the properties of the decree holder and judgment debtor. The 3rd respondent filed OP (C) No. 2738 of 2016 before this Court, primarily contending that the prayer for construction of fencing was beyond the scope of the decree. Ext.P8 order dated 01.12.2016 was passed in the OP (C), which found that the rejection of the objection filed by the 3rd respondent, by the Execution Court, was proper. It was found that there was no illegality committed by the court below warranting interference, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In fact, this Court had specifically found that “it can only be presumed that the boundary has been fixed by the Court below and in such cases, the boundary wall can also be constructed with the help of the Court by filing an execution petition” (sic). The respondents however continued their illegal activities on the basis of the claim which was rejected by the Civil Court. Since repeated complaints before the Police evoked no response, the Munsiff's Court was again approached. The learned Munsiff passed an order based on which Ext.P11 communication dated 21.02.2018 for police assistance was issued. Even when the fencing was constructed under police assistance, it was demolished is the specific contention taken by the petitioner. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent contends that in fact in the crime registered as against the allegation of demolition of fencing, the 3rd respondent was acquitted in C.C. 3rd No. 852 of 2009. The learned Counsel for the respondent also would pray that this Court may refuse jurisdiction under Article 226 and direct the petitioner to approach the Execution Court. It is also submitted that there is a petition to set aside the ex-parte decree filed before the Lower Court. 5. The learned Counsel for the respondent also would pray that this Court may refuse jurisdiction under Article 226 and direct the petitioner to approach the Execution Court. It is also submitted that there is a petition to set aside the ex-parte decree filed before the Lower Court. 5. Going through the order in C.C. No. 852 of 2009 dated 31.07.2013, produced across the Bar, we find that the allegation was one levelled as having been committed on 08.05.2009, which obviously was after Ext.P7 dated 29.05.2008 order of police assistance was passed by the learned Munsiff's Court, when the proceedings were pending and there was an injunction in favour of the petitioner. The allegation was also of removal of a survey stone and not destruction of fencing. It is the submission of the petitioner that after Ext.P11 order, the fencing was destroyed, which was constructed with police assistance. 6. The Police has filed a detailed statement which indicates that even when the suit and counter claim were pending there were constant disputes between the parties which often escalated into violence. An incident is recited; when, the police reached the spot with the petitioner under orders of the Civil Court; the 3rd respondent and some other women threatened suicide by pouring kerosene over themselves. Though the Police state that they have provided assistance whenever requested; they seem to be labouring under a misapprehension that unless the revenue authorities are involved, it is difficult to demarcate the boundary. It is not for the Police to decide these aspects, when there is a decree obtained by the petitioner and the Civil Court has deputed a Commissioner to put up a fencing in the property as per the boundary demarcated of the properties. The order of the Munsiffs Court also has been affirmed by this Court in the OP (C) as seen from Ext.P8. The Commissioner of course could make a prayer for assistance from the revenue department. If that is not made; then the Police would ensure that the Commissioner is allowed to mark the boundary and then erect the fencing; which also has to be preserved from any destructive activities of the judgment debtor (3rd respondent) and her relatives and henchmen. 7. The decree itself was passed as early as on 17.10.2012. The application to set aside the ex-parte decree is said to have been filed in June, 2018. 7. The decree itself was passed as early as on 17.10.2012. The application to set aside the ex-parte decree is said to have been filed in June, 2018. As we noticed there has been constant disputes between the parties which often escalated into violence and the police were also involved. The Execution Petition has been pending from 2013 and there were consistent challenge of the various orders passed by the Execution Court. We are surprised by the grossly delayed application before the Civil Court to set aside a decree; which obviously is filed after consistently failing in the attempts to flout the decree and the consequential orders passed in the Execution Proceedings. There was always allegation of violation of the Civil Court's orders and later, on specific orders issued by the Munsiff's Court, the fence was reconstructed which was destroyed by the respondent. This is a case in which the petitioner has been approaching the Civil Court for remedies, and the orders obtained are attempted to be frustrated by the respondents 3 to 5. The respondents are seen to be persons, who have absolutely no respect for law and the orders passed by the Civil Court. Even when the orders in execution were enforced with police assistance, the respondents have committed acts in violation of the orders passed by the Civil Court. This is a case in which the jurisdiction under Article 226 can be invoked, as has been held by the another Division Bench in Illyas vs. State of Kerala, 2014 (4) KLT 362 . 8. We are neither inclined to relegate the petitioner to the Execution Court; whose orders have been flagrantly violated by the party respondents nor are we hesitant to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 on the plea addressed of alternative remedy, since the party respondents by their blatant and nefarious activities have ensured that the alternative remedy is not efficacious. We are also not convinced that there is any cause to stay our hands in so far as the grossly delayed application to set aside the ex-parte decree. We are also not convinced that there is any cause to stay our hands in so far as the grossly delayed application to set aside the ex-parte decree. In such circumstances, we direct the Execution Court in E.P. No. 6 of 2013, if pending, or if closed to restore it suo motu and, depute a Commissioner to supervise the erection of a fence or wall, as desired by the petitioner, in accordance with the decree and the Police to afford necessary protection to carry out the same. It shall also be ensured by the Police that no destruction is caused to the fencing by the respondents and if such an act is carried out the Execution Court shall take such steps, as provided in Order XXI Rule 32 of the Civil Procedure Code to curb the violation. The Police shall scrupulously comply with the orders of the Civil Court. 9. The writ petition is allowed. There is no order on costs. 10. Considering the fact that the Counsel appearing for the petitioner has been appointed by the High Court Legal Services Committee and also considering the fact that the matter was hotly contested, it is directed that the full fees to the Counsel shall be paid.