1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:21.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU Writ Petition (MD)No.910 of 2011 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2011 P.Muthu :Petitioner -Vs- 1.The Commissioner of Police,Trichirappalli District. 2.The Inspector of Police,Woraiyur Police Station, Woraiyur, Trichirappali District. 3.The Sub Inspector of Police, Govt. Hospital Police Station, Govt. Hospital, Puthur, Trichy-17 4.A.Ramar 5.Thangavel 6.T.Lakshmi :Respondents Prayer:Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the 2nd and 3rd respondents from interfering in the dispute of Civil nature suit instituted by the petitioner in O.S.No.462 of 2006 against the fourth respondent and others pending on the file of the Principal District Munsif of Trichirappalli District. For Petitioner :Mr.R.Sureshkumar For Respondents 4-6:No appearance For Respondents 1-3:Mr.M.Govindan, Special Government Pleader. ORDER The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the second and third respondents namely, the Inspector of Police and Sub Inspector of Police to forbear from interfering in the dispute which is of a civil nature and also in terms of the suit instituted by the petitioner in O.S.No.462 of 2006 against the fourth respondent which is pending on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Trichy. 2.When the matter came up on 25.01.2011, this Court ordered notice of motion and granted interim injunction restraining the third respondent from interfering in the civil dispute between the petitioner and the respondents 4 to 6. 3.The suit instituted by the petitioner has disclosed in the plaint is for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants who were claimed imaginary right over the suit property and preventing them from enjoying the possession of the property and also not to trespass. In that suit, the fourth respondent has arraigned as 6th defendant and the suit is contested by the defendants. The defendants have filed a written statement stating that the land is poramboke land and the defendants ancestors were residing in the said land and they were also having kist receipts for being in the land and it is also claimed for more than 30 years, they were in possession of the land. 4.It is also seen from the records that the petitioner has filed an interlocutory application under Order 31 Rule 1 CPC against very same respondents seeking for temporary injunction and the Court below had also https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 granted ad-interim injunction subject to comply with the provision of the Order 39 Rule 3. 5.It is not claimed as to the out come of the said application and also the outcome of the suit. It is suffice from the reading of the prayer, the suit is still pending and the fate of the injunction is not revealed in the affidavit. While the suit is pending, the very same petitioner in W.P. (MD)No.12196 of 2009 making only the revenue authorities as parties and sought for assignment of the land to the petitioner in the survey number in question, this Court did not go into the merits of of his claim and merely directed the petitioner to send a representation and which representation, the revenue authorities were directed to be considered. 6.It is at this stage, the petitioner after sending a letter to the first respondent Commissioner of Police that complaining to the police authorities that the respondents are unnecessarily interfered with the suit of a civil nature and therefore, he should direct him to instruct the officials not to interfere. It is in that premises, the present writ petition came to be filed. However, this Court do not find that any case made out for granting any relief as claimed by the petitioner. Since the suit is essentially pending between the petitioner and the fourth respondent any disturbance either by his men or agents or their servants or any third party like police officials, he can always file a contempt petition before the Munsif Court and not before this Court by way of this writ petition when the substantive cause of action is still pending before the Court below. 7.Today, when the matter came up, learned Special Government Pleader produced a copy of the letter sent by the one T.Lakshmi, the sixth respondent herein stating that on enquiries on the complaint of her, police made an enquiry with her and one Ganesan who was involved in a land scalping. She also stated that while constructing house, he agreed to leave out some space for a lane and therefore, she does not want to further action on the complaint instituted by her. However, the sixth respondent has not appeared through counsel. 8.In any event, since the respondent police themselves have stated that the complaint has been withdrawn the apprehension expressed by the petitioner is no longer survives. Further, this Court is not inclined to interfere especially when the petitioner is entitled to all relief from the Civil Court in the suit instituted and initially, he had obtained an interim order also. 9.Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AS) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1.The Commissioner of Police,Trichirappalli District. 2.The Inspector of Police,Woraiyur Police Station,Woraiyur,Trichirappali Dt. 3.The Sub Inspector of Police,Govt. Hospital Police Station, Govt. Hospital, Puthur, Trichy-17. +1CC to The Special Government Pleader. SR.No.40820. RP/07.12.2011/2P/5C.Writ Petition (MD)No.910 of 2011 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/