JUDGMENT : G. GIRISH, J. 1. A Private Limited Company represented by its Authorised Signatory has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the main relief as stated below: “Issue a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding Respondents 1 and 2 to afford adequate protection to the life and property of the Petitioners, its employees, representatives from any further criminal acts, threats, intimidation or illegal interference by Respondent Nos.3 to 5 and their associates.” 2. Though it appears upon a first blush that respondents 3 to 5, against whom the above relief is sought to be enforced, are Trade Union Activists or third parties, attempting to interfere with the freedom of work of the employees of the petitioner, it is not actually so. Respondents 3 to 5 are admittedly persons who entered into an agreement with the petitioner, to sell their property and establishment to the petitioner. It is, in connection with the aforesaid property sought to be sold to the petitioner, that the petitioner seeks the intervention of this Court to protect them from the interference of the respondents 3 to 5 in carrying on activities there. 3. The case of the petitioner is summarised as follows: The third respondent who owns an establishment by name M/s.Eco Rubber, a manufacturing unit engaged in rubber, coir and jute products, entered into an agreement with the petitioner, to sell the above establishment and its property, by virtue of Ext.P5 agreement executed on 16.12.2025. The respondents 4 and 5 are the husband and son of third respondent. The aforesaid agreement was necessitated since the establishment of the third respondent was under attachment from the Kerala State Financial Corporation in connection with the outstanding dues of a loan amounting to Rs.10 Crores. As per the terms of the agreement, the purchase price was Rs.8.10 Crores, out of which, the petitioner had paid an amount of Rs.2,24,55,287/- to the third respondent, to meet various expenses including the advance amount for one time settlement of the loan dues. The petitioner took possession of the establishment of the third respondent on 15.01.2026, in part performance of the contract, and thereafter they are operating the establishment and maintaining the property, incurring expenses for its upkeep and management. The petitioner took possession of the establishment of the third respondent on 15.01.2026, in part performance of the contract, and thereafter they are operating the establishment and maintaining the property, incurring expenses for its upkeep and management. The respondent Nos.3 to 5 wilfully and knowingly committed breach of contract and refused to execute registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the establishment and property agreed to be sold by virtue of Ext.P5 agreement. In a meeting held on 30.01.2026 between the respondents 3 to 5 and the petitioner, it was agreed that they would either sell the property to the petitioner on 06.02.2026 or cancel the deal with the repayment of the entire expenses incurred by the petitioner. However, they failed to honour the above undertaking as well, and neglected to refund the amount invested by the petitioner. In the above circumstances, the petitioner instituted a suit before the Commercial Court, Cherthala seeking a decree of mandatory injunction directing respondents 3 to 5 to convey their establishment and property by executing and registering a sale deed in favour of the petitioner upon payment of valid consideration, or in the alternative, to refund the entire expenses incurred by the petitioner in connection with the aforesaid deal. An application for temporary injunction restraining the respondents 3 to 5 and their associates from forcibly evicting the petitioner or interfering with the lawful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the property agreed to be sold, is under consideration of the said Court. An application for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the plaint schedule property in that suit, and to submit a report of the physical possession, state and condition of the plant, machinery, factory operations etc, is also pending consideration of the Commercial Court, Cherthala. While so, the respondents 3 to 5 have threatened to cause harm and injury to the petitioner and their employees. They also threatened to spray paint the goods stored in the property and locked the premises thereby halting the functioning of the petitioner company. Though complaints were preferred against the aforesaid acts of the respondents 3 to 5, the police is not taking any action. It is in the above circumstances, that the petitioner has approached this Court with this writ petition. 4. Though complaints were preferred against the aforesaid acts of the respondents 3 to 5, the police is not taking any action. It is in the above circumstances, that the petitioner has approached this Court with this writ petition. 4. The respondents 3 to 5 have strongly opposed this writ petition, contending that the relief sought for is prima facie not allowable. While admitting certain payments made by the petitioner consequent to the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the third respondent in respect of the sale of the establishment belonging to the third respondent, it is contended that the aforesaid agreement was executed under coercion and compulsion of the petitioner while availing financial assistance from the petitioner. According to the respondents 3 to 5, the possession of their establishment and the properties associated with it, were not handed over to the petitioner. It is stated that the request of the above respondents to make them also partners in the future business operations was agreed to be considered while the petitioner advanced some money to the third respondent. It is the further contention of the respondents 3 to 5 that the petitioner failed to make payment of the balance sale consideration within the stipulated time. Respondents 3 to 5 also alleged that the petitioner along with about 25 hired persons unlawfully trespassed into the premises of their establishment on 16.01.2026, and on subsequent occasions, and caused damage to properties. The petitioner is also alleged to have threatened respondents 3 to 5 and their family members. In connection with the aforesaid criminal acts, the Mararikkulam Police is said to have registered Crime Nos.134/2026 and 152/2026 for the commission of offences of criminal trespass, intimidation, theft and mischief. According to the respondents 3 to 5, the police did not take any effective action though they approached them to prevent the illegal acts of the petitioner and their associates. It is thus contended that police protection cannot be granted to a party who is in disputed or unlawful possession especially when the dispute relates to civil rights arising out of contractual obligations. It is also stated that, since the Commercial Court concerned is already seized of the dispute, the petitioner has the option to seek efficacious remedy through the above forum. 5. It is also stated that, since the Commercial Court concerned is already seized of the dispute, the petitioner has the option to seek efficacious remedy through the above forum. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 5, and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala. 6. It is clear from the nature of the rival contentions raised by the parties that the present writ petition is the offshoot of the dispute pertaining to breach of contract in connection with the agreement for sale of the establishment and property belonging to the respondents 3 to 5 to the petitioner. Though the petitioner would contend that the possession of the establishment and the property belonging to the third respondent was handed over to the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P5 agreement executed on 16.12.2025, respondents 3 to 5 would strongly dispute the aforesaid claim of the petitioner. According to the respondents 3 to 5, they had never parted with the possession of the establishment by name M/s.Eco Rubber and the properties belonging to them. Thus, it is apparent that disputed question of fact, pertaining to the possession of the property which is the subject matter of the contract between the parties, is sought to be agitated in this writ petition. The aforesaid course cannot be adopted in a writ petition like this since it is beyond the scope and purport of the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. It is also pertinent to note that, the proper forum, which is the Commercial Court concerned, is in seizin of the issue involved, in a suit instituted by the petitioner herein. Admittedly, the said Court is yet to decide on the relief of temporary injunction sought for by the petitioner. So also, it is stated that the Advocate Commissioner appointed in the aforesaid suit is yet to conduct a local investigation for ascertaining the position and state of affairs in the disputed property. Thus, the intervention of this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not be proper in the facts and circumstances of this case. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on various documents like telephone bills, GST registration certificate, purchase orders, tax invoices, cash bills etc. Thus, the intervention of this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not be proper in the facts and circumstances of this case. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on various documents like telephone bills, GST registration certificate, purchase orders, tax invoices, cash bills etc. to contend that the petitioner is in possession of the establishment and property which the respondents 3 to 5 agreed to sell to them. As already stated above, this Court, in a writ petition like this, is not expected to embark upon an adjudication as to the de facto possession of the disputed property which is the subject matter of an agreement for sale between the parties. That apart, the averments in paragraph No.10 of the statement of facts of this writ petition contain the indication that the respondents 3 to 5 are still carrying on the production of goods in the establishment belonging to them. The petitioner has categorically stated in the aforesaid paragraph that the respondents 3 to 5 obtained a local order from a customer in the name of the petitioner and the production expenses for the manufacture of the goods were met by the petitioner. It is further stated thereunder that the goods so produced were not up to the required standards, and were rejected by the buyer causing further loss and damages to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the respondents failed to properly supervise the production process or ensure quality standards resulting in rejection of goods and financial loss to the petitioner. The above averments in paragraph No.10 of the statement of facts are indicative of the control and management of the respondents 3 to 5 in the manufacturing process being carried on in their establishment. Thus, the petitioner cannot be heard to say that this Court has to intervene in the dispute pertaining to the contractual violation alleged to have been committed by respondents 3 to 5. 8. Thus, the petitioner cannot be heard to say that this Court has to intervene in the dispute pertaining to the contractual violation alleged to have been committed by respondents 3 to 5. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.R. Murlidharan and Others v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 501 and contended that a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to give protection to the person of a writ petitioner can be issued when the Court is satisfied that there is a threat to his person, and the authorities have failed to perform their duties, and it is different from granting relief for the first time to a person either to allegedly protect his right to property or his right to an office, especially when the pleadings themselves disclose that disputed questions are involved. With regard to the above argument, it has to be stated that the relief of writ of mandamus sought for in this case to afford protection to the life and property of the petitioner and their employees, cannot be considered in isolation of the factual matrix of the case which is essentially a dispute pertaining to breach of contract. It is for the same reason that I have observed at the opening portion of this judgment that the main relief sought for in this writ petition is couched in such words which would give the impression that the respondents 3 to 5 are third parties trying to meddle with the functioning of the establishment of the petitioner without having any right over that establishment, in which case, the relief sought for might have been justified. But, the factual background of the case would make it clear that the relief sought for by the petitioner has its basis on the alleged breach of agreement committed by respondents 3 to 5 to sell their establishment and property to the petitioner. In such a case, it is not possible for this Court to exercise the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and embark upon an adjudication of the disputed claims of the parties. The proposition of law in this regard has been laid down in the same decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which the learned counsel for the petitioner had relied on. The proposition of law in this regard has been laid down in the same decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which the learned counsel for the petitioner had relied on. The relevant paragraphs in the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.R. Murlidharan (supra) are extracted hereunder: “7. It is one thing to say that in a given case a person may be held to be entitled to police protection, having regard to the threat perception, but it is another thing to say that he is entitled thereto for holding an office and discharging certain functions when his right to do so is open to question. A person could not approach the High Court for the purpose of determining such disputed questions of fact which were beyond the scope and purport of the jurisdiction of the High Court while exercising writ jurisdiction as it also involved determination of disputed questions of fact. Respondent 1 who sought to claim a status was required to establish the same in a court of law in an appropriate proceeding. He for one reason or the other, failed to do so. The provisions of O.9 R.9 of the Code of Civil Procedure stare on his face. He, therefore, could not have filed a writ petition for getting the selfsame issues determined in his favour which he could not do even by filing a suit. Indeed the jurisdiction of the writ court is wide while granting relief to a citizen of India so as to protect his life and liberty as adumbrated under Art.21 of the Constitution, but while doing so it could not collaterally go into that question, determination whereof would undoubtedly be beyond its domain. What was necessary for determination of the question arising in the writ petition was not the interpretation of the documents alone, but it required adduction of oral evidence as well. Such evidence was necessary for the purpose of explaining the true nature of the deed of trust, as also the practice followed by this trust. In any event, the impleading applicant herein, as noticed hereinbefore, has raised a contention that he alone was ordained to hold the said office as per the bye laws of the trust. The qualification of the first respondent to hold the office was also in question. In any event, the impleading applicant herein, as noticed hereinbefore, has raised a contention that he alone was ordained to hold the said office as per the bye laws of the trust. The qualification of the first respondent to hold the office was also in question. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that such disputed questions could not have been gone into by the High Court in a writ proceeding. 11. A writ petition under the guise of seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to give protection to a writ petitioner, cannot be made a forum for adjudicating on civil rights. It is one thing to approach the High Court, for issuance of such a writ on a plea that a particular party has not obeyed a decree or an order of injunction passed in favour of the writ petitioner, was deliberately flouting that decree or order and in spite of the petitioner applying for it, or that the police authorities are not giving him the needed protection in terms of the decree or order passed by a court with jurisdiction. But, it is quite another thing to seek a writ of mandamus directing protection in respect of property, status or right which remains to be adjudicated upon and when such an adjudication can only be got done in a properly instituted civil suit. It would be an abuse of process for a writ petitioner to approach the High Court under Art.226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to protect his claimed possession of a property without first establishing his possession in an appropriate civil court. The temptation to grant relief in cases of this nature should be resisted by the High Court. The wide jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution would remain effective and meaningful only when it is exercised prudently and in appropriate situations.” 9. In the light of the settled position of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above regard, the petitioner is disentitled for the reliefs prayed for in this writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. In the light of the settled position of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above regard, the petitioner is disentitled for the reliefs prayed for in this writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. It is made clear that the observations made by this Court in this judgment are solely for the purpose of deciding the scope of exercising the writ jurisdiction of this Court in the given set of facts; and hence the Commercial Court concerned shall decide the matter pending before it, untrammeled by any of those observations.