Manjula Chellur, C.J.
Heard learned counsel for petitioners as well as learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 6.
2. Entire dispute seems to be in respect of a shop room wherein a restaurant in the name of 'City Hotel' is being run. What we could gather from submissions made across the Bar is O.S.No. 1048/2013 came to be filed by first petitioner against fourth respondent and others wherein an order of injunction was granted, at that time the present writ petition seems to have been filed, subsequently, an order of injunction was subject matter of appeal and the Appellate Court reversed the said order of injunction granted in favour of plaintiff. Same is taken up in original petition before the High Court - O.P.(C)398/14 and 724/2014, one is filed by first petitioner herein and other is filed by fourth respondent herein. Both the writ petition parties are directed to maintain W.P.(C)No.27009 OF 2013 : 2 :
status quo. In the light of said fact, it would not be proper for this Court to direct the respondent Police to give protection to petitioners. In other words, police cannot entertain or interfere in the civil rights of parties. However, if disputes between the parties give rise to any law and order situation or criminal offence is committed, then only police shall intervene. As a matter of fact, Police have already registered Crime No.2244/13 against petitioners and owner of the property.
In the light of above facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion this writ petition cannot be entertained. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
MANJULA CHELLUR, Chief Justice jes P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, Judge