1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.10.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD)No.11422 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011 G.Paramasivam : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City. 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Annanagar, Madurai. 3.The Inspector of Police, K.Pudur Police Station, Madurai. 4.G.V.Nagarajan : Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to issue suitable directions to the respondents 2 and 3 for giving necessary police protection to the petitioner for looking after the affairs and conducting the poojas in the "Aathi Mariyamman Temple" situated in Ganapathy Servai Street, in K.Pudur, Madurai. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Surianarayanan For Respondents -1 to 3 : Mr.R.Karthikeyan, Additional Government Pleader For Respondent-4 : Mr.S.Louis O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, seeking a Mandamus to direct the first respondent to issue suitable directions to the respondents 2 and 3 to give police protection to the petitioner for managing the affairs of a temple. 2. Heard Mr.R.Surianarayanan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.S.Louis, learned counsel for the fourth respondent. 3. The petitioner has already filed a suit in O.S.No.73 of 2009 on the file of the III Additional Sub Court, Madurai, against https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 the fourth respondent herein as well as others, seeking a decree of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the property in question. By a judgment and decree dated 31.1.2011, the Trial Court granted a decree of declaration and permanent injunction. 4. However, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the fourth respondent is interfering with his right of enjoyment in violation of the decree of injunction. Therefore he has come up with the above writ petition, seeking police protection. 5. Even according to the petitioner, the fourth respondent has not obtained interim suspension of the decree of permanent injunction from an Appellate Court, though he had filed an appeal. Therefore, there is no impediment for the petitioner to execute the decree in terms of Order XXI, Rule 32 CPC. A decree cannot be sought to be executed by filing a writ petition. The appropriate remedy is available under the provisions of the Act itself. 6. I have already held in A.Diravidamani vs. Chitradevi {2008 (8) MLJ 218} that the decree of permanent injunction is an executable decree. The petitioner can file an execution petition in which even police protection could be sought for. A similar view was expressed by K.Chandru,J., in Pastor John Ponnaiah vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Police {2009 (5) CTC 408}. 7. Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies before the Executing Court, this writ petition is dismissed. It is made clear that except with any order from any Court, the police shall not interfere in the civil disputes between the parties. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (T&P) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City. 2. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Annanagar, Madurai. 3. The Inspector of Police, K.Pudur Police Station, Madurai. +1 CC to Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, Advocate (SR.No.35443) +1 CC to Special Government Pleader (SR.No.35471) W.P(MD) No.11422 of 2011 12.10.2011 Svn NSV/31.10.11/2P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/