1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)NO.535 of 2011 M.Murugappan .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, O/o.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ponnamaravathy, Pudukkottai District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Panaiyapatti Police Station, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukkottai District. 3.Visalakshmi .. Respondents This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to forbear the respondents 1 and 2 from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in Door No.2/15, Main Road, Kuruvikkondanpatti, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukkottai District at the instance of the third respondent herein in respect of which Appeal Suit No.255/2009 is pending on the file of this court. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sundar Srinivasan For Respondents : Mr.TS.Md.Mohideen, AGP for RR1 and 2 Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff for Mr.M.Ajmal Khan for R-3 ORDER This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to respondents to forbear them from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's property in Door No.2/15, Main Road, Kuruvikkondanpatti, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukkottai District at the instance of the third respondent in respect of which an appeal suit in A.S.No.255 of 2009 is pending on the file of this court. 2.When the writ petition came up on 12.1.2011, notice of motion was ordered. Subsequently, on 01.11.2011, the learned Additional Government Pleader was directed to get instructions from the respondents. In the present case, the petitioner has already moved the criminal side with Cril.O.P.(MD)No.13853 of 2010, regarding police harassment, which was disposed of on 22.11.2010. In that criminal original petition, this court directed the petitioner to subject himself for interrogation and also permitted to take the assistance of an Advocate. Subsequently, he filed a Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14165 of 2010 seeking for an anticipatory bail. That was also granted by this court on 24.11.2010 subject to certain conditions. There is yet an another criminal complaint given by the third respondent dated 3.12.2010. It only shows that there has been running https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 battle between the petitioner and the third respondent. Therefore, in this case, he has come forward to seek for police protection from any one interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of the properties. 3.Admittedly, in the suit in O.S.No.31 of 2004, the petitioner's claim for a share in the property was rejected. An appeal as admitted by him in A.S.No.255 of 2009 is pending and no interim order has been passed. Therefore, if the petitioner wants any relief, he should have approached for an injunction in the appeal suit and not by filing an independent writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, trying to protect his interest. In essence, he cannot have main relief in the appeal suit and have the benefit of an interim injunction in the guise of seeking police protection to safeguard his possession of properties. 4.The Supreme Court in P.R. Murlidharan v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar reported in (2006) 4 SCC 501 held that only if the court is satisfied that the protection of life and liberty of a citizen is threatened and if the authority failed to perform their duty, the question of police protection will arise. In paragraph 11 of the said judgment, it was observed as follows: "11.The question is a contentious one. Construction of the said trust and the rights and obligations thereunder were in question. The first respondent filed a suit in that behalf. The said suit was dismissed. In terms of Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure another suit would not be maintainable at his instance. We have noticed hereinbefore that another suit being OS No. 30 of 2002 is pending in the Court of Munsif. The High Court, despite noticing the said fact, sought to usurp the jurisdiction of the civil court. It, as noticed hereinbefore, determined the contentious issues which were required to be proved in terms of the provisions of the Evidence Act." 5.In his concurring opinion rendered by P.K.Balasubramanyan, J., in paragraph 19, it was observed as follows : "19.A writ for “police protection” so-called, has only a limited scope, as, when the court is approached for protection of rights declared by a decree or by an order passed by a civil court. It cannot be extended to cases where rights have not been determined either finally by the civil court or, at least at an interlocutory stage in an unambiguous manner, and then too in furtherance of the decree or order." 6.Under these circumstances, there is no case made out. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (crl.Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To 1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, O/o.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ponnamaravathy, Pudukkottai District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Panaiyapatti Police Station, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukkottai District. +1cc to Special Government Pleader, Sr.No.38512 +1cc to Mr.R.Sundar Srinivasan, Advocate SR.No.38884 vvk GH : 24.01.2012 : 3p/5c W.P.(MD)NO.535 of 2011 08.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/