1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD)Nos.11848 and 12363 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 1 of 2011 W.P(MD)No.11848 of 2011 Seyedunnisha .. Petitioner vs. 1.The Inspector of Police, Melapalayam Police Station, Tirunelveli District. 2.Mr.Pargunam, The Inspector of Police, Melapalayam Police Station, Tirunelveli District. 3.Mr.Bagathsing Mohammed .. Respondents PRAYER : Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the first respondent from interfering with the civil dispute in respect of 24 cents of land situated on the northern side in S.No.489, Keezha Veeraraghavapuram Village, Palayamkottai Taluk, Which is the subject matter of suit in O.S.No.123 of 2011 pending on the file the Sub-Court, Tirunelveli. For Petitioner : Mr.H.Arumugam For R-1 : Mr.R.Karthikeyan, Addl. Govt. Pleader W.P(MD)No.12363 of 2011 Bagathsing Mohammed ... Petitioner vs. 1.The Assistant Commissioner, City Crime Branch, Tirunelveli City. 2.The Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Tirunelveli City. 3.Yakoop 4.Syed Nisha 5.Sahul Hameed ... Respondents PRAYER : Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 not to interfere in the civil dispute in respect of land measuring 25 cents situated on the western side in S.No.489, Keezha Veeraraghavapuram Village, Palayamkottai Taluk and further direct the respondents 1 and 2 not to harass the petitioner compelling him to settle the issue on the terms of the complaint given by the third respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.K.R.Laxman For R-1 and R-2: Mr.R.Karthikeyan,Addl. Govt. Pleader For R-3 : Mr.T.R.Jeyapalam, Mr.J.Bharadhan C O M M O N O R D E R Both these Writ Petitions are for identical reliefs, but by persons who are pitted against each other in respect of a dispute relating to a property which form part of the same whole. 2. Heard Mr.H.Arumugam, learned Counsel or the petitioner in the first writ petition, Mr.K.R.Laxman, learned counsel for the petitioner in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 next writ petition and Mr.J.Bharadhan, learned counsel for the third respondent in the second Writ Petition. 3. The petitioner in the first writ petition is also the fourth respondent in the second writ petition. Similarly, the third respondent in the first writ petition is the petitioner in the next writ petition. Both of them have a dispute relating to the property which already forms the subject matter of a suit in O.S.No.123 of 2011 pending on the file of the Sub-Court, Tirunelveli. 4. The said suit O.S.No.123 of 2011 was filed by the petitioner in the first writ petition against the petitioner in the second writ petition praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant therein from interfering with her possession and enjoyment. Despite filing a suit and also obtaining an order of injunction, the petitioner in the first writ petition has also made a complaint to the police. On the basis of the said complaint, it appears that the respondent police initiated action and ultimately proceeded against the complainant, forcing her to come up with the first writ petitioner. Thereafter, the tide of fortune turned in favour of the complainant, forcing the petitioner in the second writ petition to come up before this Court. 5. Ultimately the result of the bickerings between the parties is that both parties are seeking prohibitory orders against the police not to interfere in a civil dispute. 6. As I have already pointed out in Periyamondi vs. The Inspector of Police in W.P(MD)No.12081 of 2011 decided on 02.11.2011, civil disputes between the parties are better taken to the civil Courts to be decided. While contending that police should not interfere in a civil dispute, parties forget that even a Writ Court could not interfere. As to what should be done by the police is a question for which there is an answer. Once a person gets his rights declared by a civil Court and also gets a prohibitory order, there are ever so many ways for the enforcement of the property rights through civil Court itself. Therefore, writ petition at the instance of either of the parties cannot be maintained. Hence, both the writ petitions are dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( T and P ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR pm To 1.The Inspector of Police,Melapalayam Police Station, Tirunelveli District. 2.The Assistant Commissioner, City Crime Branch, Tirunelveli City. 3.The Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Tirunelveli City. 1CC TO MR. K.R. LAXMAN, ADVOCATE, SR: 39971: 1CC TO THE SPL. GOVT PLEADER SR: 40164: DM::2011:DECEMBER:01:: W.P.(MD)Nos.11848 and 12363 of 2011 2P:6C:: 16.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/