1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATE: 08.03.2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P.(MD).No.938 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 A.Kanagaraj ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Pattiveeranpatti Police Station, Dindigul District. 2.Mr.Chinnaiah, Sub-Inspector of Police, Pattiveeranpatti Police Station, Dindigul District. 3.Mr.Vairam ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents 1 and 2 from anyway threatening or pressurizing the petitioner to execute any document or anyway threatening the petitioner in the subject matter of suit in O.S.Nos.137 and 138 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif, Nilakottai. For Petitioner :: Mr.Veera Kathiravan For R.1&2 :: Mr.K.Balasubramanian Addl.Govt.Pleader For R.3 :: Mr.M.R.Murugesan ORDER The petitioner has stated in the affidavit that he is in possession and enjoyment of 62 cents in Ayyampalayam Village of Attur Taluk, Dindigul District. Since the third respondent is interfering with the property in question, he has filed a suit in O.S.Nos.137 and 138 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif, Nilakottai, for direction and consequential injunction against the third respondent's vendor and the third respondent. In the said suit, an order of interim injunction was sought for and it was not granted and the said suit is pending. But, in the mean while, the third respondent has made a complaint on 24.12.2010 that the petitioner had cut the coconut trees and influenced the respondent. Apart from that, the first respondent is pressurizing the petitioner that he should not cut the coconuts trees in the property in question and pressurizing https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 him to withdraw the suits and also threatening that they would register a criminal case against the petitioner. Therefore, he has filed a Mandamus against the first respondent and the second respondent from anyway threatening or pressurizing the petitioner to execute any document or anyway threatening the petitioner in the subject matter of suit in O.S.Nos.137 and 138 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif, Nilakottai. 2. Mr.K.Balasubramanian, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and for the second respondent in his individual capacity would only say that they will not in any way interfere with the pendency or the subject matter of the civil suit pending on the file of the District Munsif, Nilakottai. 3. Mr.M.R.Murugesan appearing for the third respondent would contend that he is also claiming that he is in possession of the property in question. He would also contend that a criminal complaint, which has been lodged on 26.12.2002 for the theft of coconuts. But the same could not be registered due to the pendency of the Writ Petition. 4. The only apprehension of the petitioner is that the police should not interfere with the pending civil suit between the parties. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Government Pleader that the respondents 1 and 2 would not in any way interfere with the civil dispute between the parties. The said submission of the respondents 1 and 2 are recorded. Suffice it direct the parties that they will abide by the outcome of the Judgment, as the suits are pending between the parties. With the above said observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (LA) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Pattiveeranpatti Police Station, Dindigul District. 2.Mr.Chinnaiah, Sub-Inspector of Police, Pattiveeranpatti Police Station, Dindigul District. +1 CC to Mr.Babu Rajendran, Advocate (SR.No.5549) W.P.(MD).No.938 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 08.03.2011 ssm NSV/1.4.2011/2P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/