Judgment : The petitioners pray for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 herein to enquire into the complaint given by the petitioners dated 8.1.1997 and 9.2.1997 and to give necessary police protection to the petitioners herein for safeguarding their possession and enjoyment and for doing cultivation of their lands situate in S.No. 169/1, Thiruverkadu Village, Poonamalle taluk in an extent of 61 cents against the injury being caused at the instance of the fifth and sixth respondents herein and their men. 2. This Court ordered notice to the respondents on 24.2.1997 and the Government Advocate took notice for the respondents 1 to 4 and Mr.V.Perumal, learned counsel appeared for respondents 5 and 6. On behalf of respondents 5 and 6, counter has been filed. The Government Advocate made submissions on instructions from respondents 1 to 4. 3. The petitioners claim that they are entitled to the lands measuring 61 cents comprised in S.No. 169/1, Thiruverkadu village, that they are in possession and enjoyment of the same by personally cultivating the lands that the lands originally belonged to late Kuzhandaivelu Mudaliar, that patta for the lands stands in their names, and that the fifth respondent attempted to make a novel claim of title in respect of the very same property and also attempted to changes entries in the revenue register. 4. The petitioners further state that they instituted O.S.No.593 of 1994 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee for declaration of their title in respect of the suit property and for consequential permanent injunction against fifth respondent, her men, agents and servants from in any manner interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit property, that the petitioners also had applied for interim injunction pending the suit in I.A.No.2286 of 1994 and an order of ad-interim injunction was granted on 22.7.1994 till 19.9.1994, that the fifth respondent entered appearance and contested the injunction application, that on 28.10.1994, the injunction petition has been allowed, and that the order passed in the injunction application against the fifth respondent has become final as the final order dated 28.10.1994 had not been challenged and it is still in force. 5. 5. The petitioners also state that the suit has been transferred to the District Munsif Court, Ambattur, that despite orders of injunction, the fifth respondent as well as her husband the sixth respondent herein, who are running a theatre in the name and style of Karthik theatre near the land in question, during the month of December 1995, with the assistance of some rowdy elements armed with weapons, interfered with the cultivation and also threatened the farm workers engaged by the petitioners, that immediately the petitioners made representation to the first respondent and at the intervention of the first respondent, the action of the respondents 5 and 6 were stopped, that once again during the first week of January, 1997, the fifth and sixth respondents along with their supporters prevented the petitioners farm workers from doing cultivation work in the field by threatening them to do harm and also insulted the petitioners and their family members by using unparliamentary words and that the petitioners have been seeking police protection for their family members as well as for their farm workers. 6. The petitioners further state that the second petitioner lodged a police complaint before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Maduravoyal Police Station on 8.1.1997, who had failed to take action, that the petitioners once again made a complaint on 9.2.1997 and requested the Sub Inspector of Madhuravoyal Police Station to give police protection, that since the sixth respondent is the present village Administrative Officer, Thiruverkadu, the police authorities have failed to take action, that the petitioners made number of complaints and that despite orders of injunction by civil court, the respondents 5 and 6 are trying to interfere with the petitioners’ possession and enjoyment of the suit property. 7. The petitioners further state that the respondents 1 to 4, who are law enforcing authorities, are bound to protect the petitioners’ possession as they are protected by orders of injunction passed by civil court and the respondents 1 to 4 have failed to take action against respondents 5 and 6, that the respondents 1 to 4 have failed to discharge their duties despite number of representations and complaints and hence the present writ petition. 8. 8. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 submitted that on the complaints given by the petitioners, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Madhuravoyal Police Station warned the respondents 5 and 6 not to interfere with the petitioners possession on two occasions and also had obtained a statement of undertaking not to disturb the petitioners’ possession. 9. On the other hand, Mr.V. Perumal, learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6 contended that the petitioners are not in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and it is the fifth and sixth respondents who are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property from 20.5.1956. It is further contended that the petitioners have obtained patta by fraud, that the fifth respondent had executed a registered sale deed in favour of one Premavathy in respect of the suit property, that the said Premavathy is running a theatre and that the fifth and sixth respondents filed a suit and the suit is still pending. 10. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the respondents 5 and 6 that the disputed question of title and possession cannot be decided in this writ petition and that the inter se dispute between the parties have to be decided by the civil court. It is further contended that being a disputed question of facts, this Court has to decline the issue of writ or mandamus under Art.226 of the Constitution. 11. Mr.Perumal, learned counsel for respondents relied upon the pronouncement of the Apex Court in Swethambar Sthanakwasi Jaim Samiti v. Alleged Committee of Management Swethambar Sthanakwasi Jaim Samiti v. Alleged Committee of Management , (1996)3 S.C.C. 11 and contended that this Court should not permit the extraordinary jurisdiction to be converted into a civil court under the ordinary law and more so when the suit is pending between the two parties. This contention of the learned counsel is a total misconception as this Court is not deciding the inter se disputes between the parties or the civil rights claimed by the respective parties in this writ petition, and what has been prayed for by the writ petitioners is for the issue of writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to enquire into the complaints given by the petitioners and to give necessary police protection to the writ petitioners. 12. 12. Admittedly, the suits filed by the either side are pending and this Court is not called upon to decide the inter se disputes between the parties, it has to be pointed out that after contest, the civil court granted interim injunction protecting the petitioners’ possession and the contesting respondents as on date, have suffered orders of injunction. 13. It is only the high-handed act of respondents 5 and 6, which made the petitioners to move the police for necessary protection and the failure on the part of the law enforcing authorities had led the petitioners to move this Court, hence, this contention of the learned counsel is rejected. 14. Learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6 also relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in Union of India v. Krishnamurthy Union of India v. Krishnamurthy , I.L.R. (1994)3 Mad. 495 and also contended that this Court should not decide the inter se disputes between the parties. There is no quarrel over the preposition of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court nor this Court is going to decide the inter se disputes between the parties herein this writ petition. 15. As already pointed out, the scope of this writ petition is limited and it is for a mandamus directing the law enforcing authorities to take appropriate action. 16. The learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6 admits that the orders of injunction has been made absolute pending the suit and that the respondents 5 and 6 have not preferred appeal or revision against the orders of injunction nor they have secured any interim orders in the suit instituted by them. As it is, the order of injunction passed by the civil court protecting the possession of the petitioners is in force. When an order of injunction is in force, it is essential and also incumbent on the part of the law enforcing authorities to take appropriate action, when a complaint is given by the writ petitioners. If the order of Injunction is violated and a criminal complaint is given before the law enforcing authorities, so long as the order of injunction is in force, the law enforcing authorities have to give effect to the same and also take appropriate action protecting the possession of persons who have been protected by the orders of injunction by a competent civil court. 17. 17. Merely because 5 and 6 raised a civil dispute, it cannot be assumed that the police have no power, if they try violate try to violate the orders of injunction and try to interfere with the enjoyment of the suit property in the hands of the petitioners. 18. On the facts of the case, it is evident that the law enforcing authorities have not taken appropriate action. The failure on the part of the respondents 3 and 4 to file a counter affidavit despite grant of time and their failure to place records before this Court would show that the law enforcing authorities have not taken sufficient steps to protect the possession of the writ petitioners despite the orders of injunction granted by the civil court in their favour. 19. In the circumstances, this Court has to consider the request of the petitioners and has to grant a relief as prayed for by the petitioners. 20. The failure on the part of the respondents 1 to 4 or their subordinates had made the petitioners to come before this Court and to invoke jurisdiction under Art.226. It is needless to state that the respondents 1 to 4 are bound to give effect to the orders of injunction and to protect the possession of the petitioners when respondents 5 and 6 or their men or agents tried to forcibly interfere with the possession of the petitioners and created law and order problem. 21. The failure on the part of the respondents 3 and 4 is being pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners. There is force in this submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 22. It is true, as pointed out by learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6 that the petitioners should have moved the civil court for direction to the police to protect the petitioners possession. This contention of the learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6 cannot be appreciated. The failure on the part of the respondents 3 and 4 to take action on the complaint given by the petitioners and their family members and their failure to take appropriate action against the fifth respondent for her attempt to interfere with the petitioners’ possession and obstructing the agricultural operation on the said land, led the petitioners to seek for police protection. It has to be emphasised that the respondents 3 and 4, who are the law enforcing authorities in that locality and respondents 1 and 2 are bound to protect the possession of the writ petitioners as they have the orders of injunction in their favour. At any rate, till the injunction is vacated or the suit is decided, the law enforcing authorities cannot go into the claim of the respondents 5 and 6 or their claim of possession and enjoyment as they are bound by the orders of injunction. 23. In the foregoing circumstances, this Court directs the respondents 1 to 4 to take appropriate action against the respondents 5 and 6 and their men withrespect to the complaint already given by the petitioners on 8.1.1997 and on 9.2.1997 as well as subsequent petitions. 24. The writ petition is ordered in the above terms. No costs. Consequently W.M.P.No.4079 of 1997 is dismissed.