M. Raja vs The Superintendent of Police

T.S. Sivagnanam, J.—The prayer in the Writ Petition is for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the second respondent from interfering in a civil dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent, relating with the property in S. No. 2343/2, measuring an extent of 3 Acre 54 Cents at Allinagaram Village, Theni District, which is a subject matter of the suit in O.S. No. 180/2008, on the file of District Munsif, Theni.

Heard Mr. R. Suriya Naryanan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.S. Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2.

By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the time of admission.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the third respondent mortgaged the property in S. No. 2343/2, measuring an extent of 3 Acres 54 Cents at Allinagaram Village, Theni District, in favour of the petitioner and his father and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same for more than five decades. The third respondent in order to redeem the said mortgage filed a suit for redemption in O.S. No. 180 of 2008 on the file of District Munsif Court, Theni and the learned District Munsif, passed a preliminary decree on 31.03.2011. Further, the third respondent filed an application in I.A. No. 142 of 2014 under Section 152 C.P.C., to rectify certain defects in the preliminary decree dated 31.03.2011 and the said petition appears to have been allowed by the Court below on 03.06.2014 and the petitioner has received the certified copy of the order only on 05.07.2014.

The grievance of the petitioner is that only remedy open to the third respondent is to execute the civil Court''s decree and he cannot approach the respondent police and the respondent police have no jurisdiction to interfere in the matter.

Since the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage without notice to the third respondent, no positive direction is granted in this case, but liberty is given to the petitioner to submit a detailed representation before the second respondent along with a copy of this order and all the copies of civil proceedings and it is suffice to observe that if there is a civil dispute, the second respondent should not interfere with the same and direct the parties to work out their remedies before the civil Court. It is to be noted that as against the order passed in I.A. No. 142 of 2014, the petitioner has got appeal remedy and the limitation period is 30 days, viz., until the first week of August 2014. The petitioner is entitled to prefer an appeal. These factors have to be gone into mind by the second respondent before interfering in the dispute. No costs.