Madras High Court
Pagavathi Nadar vs The Superintendent Of Police on 19 December, 2022
W.P(MD).No.5267 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 19.12.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
W.P(MD)No.5267 of 2014
Pagavathi Nadar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vallioor,
Radhapuram Taluk,
Tirunelveli District.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Panagudi Police Station,
Panagudi,
Radhapuram Taluk,
Tirunelveli District.
4. The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Palavoor Police Station,
Palavoor, Radhapuram Taluk,
Tirunelveli District.
5. Raja Pandian
S/o. Narayanasamy Nadar
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.5267 of 2014
6. Rajam
W/o. Raja Pandian ... Respondents
(Respondents 5 and 6 are impleaded vide
order of this Court dated 18.06.2015
in M.P(MD) No.1 of 2014 in W.P(MD)
No.5267 of 2014)
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the
respondents to provide the petitioner necessary police protection at the time
of fencing the petitioner's property admeasuring Cents 25 in Survey Nos.
638/1B, 638/2B and 638/3B, Acre 1 in Survey No.638/1A, Cents 80 in
Survey No.638/2A and 638/2B, Cents 70 in Survey No.638/2A and 638/2B
as per the decree at Therkku Karunkulam Village, Radhapuram Taluk,
Tirunelveli District in a date convenient to the respondents within stipulated
time fixed by this Court by considering the petitioner's representation dated
12.03.2014.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.R.Anbarasu
For Respondents : Mr.R.M.S.Sethuraman
Additional Public Prosecutor
(For – R1 to R4)
2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.5267 of 2014
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking for a Mandamus to
provide necessary police protection at the time of fencing the petitioner's
property, as per the decree passed in O.S.No.191 of 2007 on the file of the
Additional District Munsif Court, Vallioor.
2. The case of the petitioner is that there is a dispute between the
petitioner and the respondents 5 and 6 and therefore, the petitioner has
approached the Civil Court in O.S.No.191 of 2007. He would further submit
that by judgment and decree, dated 19.09.2013, the learned Additional
District Munsif, Vallioor granted permanent injunction against the
respondents 5 and 6. Therefore, he had prayed for a Mandamus to direct the
third respondent to grant police protection to fence the property of the
petitioner.
3. Countering the arguments, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
would submit that the prayer in the Writ Petition is seeking for a police
protection to fence the properties in S.Nos.638/1B, 2B, 2A at Therkku
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.5267 of 2014
Karunkulam Village, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District. The decree of
permanent injunction granted by the civil Court is in respect of Survey Nos.
636/3C and 636/4D of South Karunkulam Village. He would contend that
based on the strength of the decree obtained from the civil Court, the
petitioner has tried to seek police protection to fence the different property.
That apart, he would further submit that it is only for the petitioner to
approach the civil Court for execution of the decree of permanent injunction
and it is purely civil dispute between the petitioner and the respondents No.
5 and 6 for which the services of the third respondent cannot be extended to
settle the civil dispute and therefore, he prayed this Court not to grant police
protection.
4. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side.
5. As rightly pointed out that the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, the decree is for different property and the property for which
the petitioner is seeking indulgence to grant police protection is different.
That apart, it is for the petitioner to approach the civil Court which granted
the decree, for execution. This Court shall refrain from issuing Mandamus
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.5267 of 2014
to settle the civil dispute between the private parties. It is always open to the
petitioner to approach civil Court for appropriate relief against the
respondents No.5 and 6.
6. In the light of the above, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
19.12.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ebsi
To
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vallioor, Radhapuram Taluk,
Tirunelveli District.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Panagudi Police Station,
Panagudi, Radhapuram Taluk,
Tirunelveli District.
4. The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Palavoor Police Station,
Palavoor, Radhapuram Taluk,
Tirunelveli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.5267 of 2014
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
ebsi
Order made in
W.P(MD)No.5267 of 2014
19.12.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
