Madras High Court
S.Srinivasan vs Mr.Gurusamy ... 1St on 22 July, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.298 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 22.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.298 of 2021
and
C.M.P(MD).Nos.996, 998 and 5683 of 2021
1. S.Srinivasan
2. S.Laxmanan ... Appellants/Respondents 4 to 6
Vs.
1. Mr.Gurusamy ... 1st Respondents/Petitioner
2. The Superintendent of Police,
Tenkasi District.
3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Puliyangudi, Tenkasi District.
4. The Inspector of Police,
Sivagiri Police Station,
Tenkasi District.
5. S.Suresh
6. Malaiyammal
7. Kaliammal
8. Ramar ... Respondents 2 to 8/
Respondents 1 to 3,5, 7 to 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
W.A.(MD)No.298 of 2021
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order of
this Court made in W.P.(MD) No.18666 of 2020, dated 17.12.2020.
For Appellants : Mr.I.Pinaygash
For Respondents : Mr.M.Ramu,
for R1
Mr.A.K.Manikkam,
Standing Counsel for Government
for R2 to R4
No Appearance for R5 to R7
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J.]
We have heard Mr.I.Pinaygash, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants; Mr.M.Ramu, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and
Mr.A.K.Manikkam, learned Government Counsel appearing for the respondents
2to 4.
2. This writ appeal has been filed by the fourth respondent in
W.P(MD).No.18666 of 2020, which was disposed of by order dated 17.12.2020.
3. The writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage without
hearing the private respondents 4 to 9, one of whom is the appellant before us,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.298 of 2021
namely, S.Srinivasan. On the date when the writ petition was disposed of, the
first respondent-writ petitioner was armed with the decree of permanent
injunction in O.S.No.12 of 2011, on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial
Magistrate Court, Sivagiri. Taking note of the said submission made by the first
respondent, the learned Writ Court without going into the merits of the case,
directed the respondent-Police to consider and pass orders on the first
respondent's representation dated 02.11.2020 after giving notice to the
respondents 4 to 9, by following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in D.K.Basu vs. State of West Bengal, AIR (1997) SC 610 and if
it is found that police protection is necessary, the same may be given to the first
respondent-writ petitioner. The Court also fixed the time frame within which the
order should be complied with. Further, the Court specifically directed that the
respondent-Police shall keep in mind the judgment in O.S.No.12 of 2011, while
considering the first respondent's representation.
4. In our view, when the matter is pending before the civil Court and
if the first respondent herein had obtained an ex-parte decree, it would be well
open to the first respondent to move the executing Court for executing the
decree and the route chosen by the first respondent is incorrect and the Writ
Court cannot issue any direction for grant of police protection. It is brought to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.298 of 2021
our notice that the appellant had filed I.A.No.300 of 2018 under Order IX Rule
9 read with Section 151 C.P.C., to set aside the ex-parte decree and restore the
suit and give him opportunity. The said petition was dismissed by the trial Court
by order dated 08.07.2020. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has filed
C.M.A.No.2 of 2020, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court,
Sankarankoil and the appeal is pending.
5. In the light of the above factual position, any direction issued by
the Writ Court will definitely cause prejudice not only to the plaintiff, but also
to the defendant and there is likelihood of misuse of police power. Therefore,
the order and direction issued in the Writ Court deserves to be set aside.
6. In the result, this Writ Appeal is allowed and the order passed in
the writ petition is set aside, consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. We
leave it open to the appellants and the first respondent-writ petitioner, who are
parties in the civil suit to agitate all their rights in the civil proceedings
including the appeal pending in C.M.A.No.2 of 2020, on the file of the Principal
Subordinate Court, Sankarankoil.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.298 of 2021
7. It is made clear that this Court is not gone into the merits of the
matter and the parties shall have their respective rights before the civil Court,
which shall be decided based on the oral and documentary evidence, which may
be placed before the Court and not in any manner be influenced by any
observations made by the learned Writ Court, which we have set aside in its
entirety. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index :Yes/No (T.S.S.,J.) (S.A.I.,J.)
Internet :Yes/No 22.07.2021
pkn
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be
utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy
of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall
be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To:
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Tenkasi District.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Puliyangudi, Tenkasi District.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Sivagiri Police Station,
Tenkasi District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.298 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
and
S.ANANTHI, J.
pkn
W.A.(MD)No.298 of 2021
22.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
