ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present appellants are aggrieved against the order dated 21.10.2011 passed in W.P.(C) No. 639 of 2010 by which, after rejecting the Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 3087 of 2011 filed by 17 persons-appellants, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition with direction that the petitioner shall once again move an application before Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi to ensure that the life, liberty and property in the writ petition be safeguarded from the antisocial elements and needful shall be done on deposit (by petitioner) of necessary expenses and cost within a period of six weeks. 3. The facts of the present case as stated by the writ petitioner in his writ petition are that present controversy is relating to the immovable property comprises of land, building and orchard appertaining to M.S.Plot No. 1608 and 1609 corresponding to Municipal Holding No. 488 (Old), 1185 (New) in Ward No. VII (Old), 17 (New) of Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi measuring an area of 5.528 acres or about, situated at Mauza Konka at 62, Circular Road, Ranchi in the town of Ranchi. The recorded owner of the property was alleged to be Sri R.N.Mookerji who died on 15th May, 1936 leaving behind his son Sri Birendra Nath Mookerjee and it has been alleged that he inherited the entire estate. Sri Birendra Nath Mookerjee executed his last Will on 17.06.1937 whereunder Lady Ranu Priti Mookerjee, wife of Sri Birendra Nath Mookerjee, was given life interest over the said property and on her death, the same were vested upon her only son Romendra Nath Mookerjee. In November, 1982, Sri Birendra Nath Mookerjee died leaving behind his widow Lady Ranu Priti Mookerjee, one son namely Romendra Nath Mookerjee and two daughters namely Neeta Pillai and Geeta Banerjee. A Probate was obtained from the Calcutta High Court in Probate Case No. 12 of 1984 in favour of Lady Ranu Priti Mookerjee in respect of the said Will. Sri Romendra Nath Mookerjee died intestate on 20.02.1993 leaving behind his descendants, his mother Smt. Ranu Priti Mookerjee, his widow Dipti Mookerjee and two sons and two daughters. Smt. Ranu Priti Mookerjee died on 15th March, 2000. 4. Sri Romendra Nath Mookerjee died intestate on 20.02.1993 leaving behind his descendants, his mother Smt. Ranu Priti Mookerjee, his widow Dipti Mookerjee and two sons and two daughters. Smt. Ranu Priti Mookerjee died on 15th March, 2000. 4. Be that as it may, ultimately by different sale deeds registered on various dates, the property was sold to the writ petitioner M/s. Feckon Constructions & Industries Pvt. Ltd., and according to the writ petitioner, the said company was put in possession also. The petitioner, thereafter, got their name mutated in the month of February 2006 and January, 2008. 5. One Sri Janab Salim Saheb filed a suit for injunction against Lady Ranu Priti Mookerjee being Title Suit No. 35 of 1990 in the court of Munsif, Ranchi on the basis of one agreement dated 14.06.1986. During the pendency of the said suit, said Ranu Priti Mookerjee died and her legal representatives were added as party by substitution. Said Title Suit No. 35 of 1990 was dismissed by the Additional Munsif, Ranchi on 12.09.2008 holding therein that the alleged agreement dated 14.06.1986 has got no force and is not enforceable because of the limited right of Lady Ranu Priti Mookerjee. 6. In addition to above civil litigation, there was proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. which was challenged in Criminal Revision No. 309 of 2008 and ultimately, said Criminal Revision No. 309 of 2008 was withdrawn and the Executive Magistrate dropped the proceeding under Section 144/145 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 18.04.2009. 7. One Title Suit No. 241 of 2001 was filed by writ petitioner's vendor Smt. Dipti Mookerjee, in the Court of Sub-Judge I, Ranchi against 5 defendants, for declaration of plaintiff's title to the suit property and seeking perpetual injunction against the defendants of the Title Suit No. 241 of 2001. The defendant No. 1 was contesting the title claim of the plaintiff and was claiming his title over the property and took the plea that in view of pendency of earlier suit No. 35 of 1990 with respect to some property, present suit cannot proceed. The defendant No. 1 was contesting the title claim of the plaintiff and was claiming his title over the property and took the plea that in view of pendency of earlier suit No. 35 of 1990 with respect to some property, present suit cannot proceed. Janab Salim Saheb, whose Title Suit No. 35 of 1990 was already dismissed, wanted to be impleaded as party in the suit but the said Suit No. 241 of 2001 was sought to be withdrawn by the plaintiff/vendor of the writ petitioner, which was objected by the defendant No.1 and defendant No. 1 also sought his transposition as plaintiff in the suit. The Trial Court vide a detailed order dated 11.10.2004 permitted the plaintiffs to withdraw the Suit No. 241 of 2001 and at the same time, rejected the defendant's prayer for transposing him as plaintiff. The order dated 11.10.2004 was challenged by filing Civil Revision Petition No. 4 of 2004 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 23.2.2005. 8. One Title Suit No. 359 of 2007 was filed by the present appellants claiming title by adverse possession and injunction, impleading one Sri Kumud Kumar Jha, Director of the writ petitioner as Defendant No.15 and the said title suit is pending in the trial court. However, according to learned counsel for the writ petitioner/respondents, in said title suit, the injunction application filed by the plaintiffs, was dismissed. 9. In the backdrop of these facts, it appears that the plaintiffs approached the administrative authority for obtaining the police help for raising construction of the boundary wall. When the administrative authority did not oblige the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner approached this Court by filing present writ petition being W.P(C) No. 639 of 2010 seeking relief, that City Deputy Superintendent of Police and Sub-Divisional Officer, Ranchi be directed to provide police help in enabling the petitioner to raise boundary wall over the property which the petitioner purchased. When the administrative authority did not oblige the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner approached this Court by filing present writ petition being W.P(C) No. 639 of 2010 seeking relief, that City Deputy Superintendent of Police and Sub-Divisional Officer, Ranchi be directed to provide police help in enabling the petitioner to raise boundary wall over the property which the petitioner purchased. In this writ petition, the appellants submitted an application for being impleaded as party with plea that their civil suit for declaration of title is pending in trial court wherein above impugned order was passed rejecting the appellants' prayer for permitting them to intervene and place on record certain material facts before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge directed the writ petitioner to file application before such administrative and police authority for relief against “anti-social elements”. Hence, this L.P.A. has been preferred by the applicants, whose application for being impleaded as party has been rejected. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge committed serious error of law in rejecting the applicants' application for impleading them as party in a fact situation when the applicants-appellants have already filed the suit before the Civil Court much prior to the filing of the writ petition and the applicants-appellants are claiming their title over the property in dispute by adverse possession. The Director of the petitioners' Company was already party defendant in the Title Suit No. 359 of 2007. The learned Single Judge has taken note of the fact of filing of the Suit by applicants-appellants but without giving any opportunity to place on record the relevant material facts, which could have been placed before the learned Single Judge after becoming party, rejected the application of the applicants-appellants in a matter where all sort of reliefs could have been claimed by the parties in a civil Suit. It is submitted that the writ petitioner deliberately did not mention the fact of pendency of Title Suit No. 359 of 2007 in spite of the fact that the Director of the petitioner Company already filed the written statement in that suit, a copy of which has been placed on record by the appellants along with this L.P.A. In view of the above reasons, the learned Single Judge should not have entertained the writ petition so as to pass any order which may and which could have been passed or could have been obtained from the Civil Court by any of the parties, if there was a legitimate claim of any of the parties. It is submitted that the applicants-appellants placed on record, the copy of the plaint of Title Suit No. 359 of 2007, which has been ignored. 11. Learned counsel for the private respondent vehemently submitted that the present appellants have no right, title and interest over the property in question. It is submitted that the present appellants are claiming right, title and interest over the property through said Janab Salim Saheb, whose claim has already been rejected by the Civil Court. It is also submitted that the present appellants have been set-up by Janab Salim Saheb. It is also submitted that since writ petitioner's title is clear and it cannot be disputed by anybody in view of the order of Probate, issued by the Calcutta High Court, which is the order in rem and not the order of personam, therefore, the writ petitioner- respondent had right to seek any administrative help or police help in a situation when there is no injunction order against the writ petitioner even in the suit filed by the appellants and where injunction application has been rejected and, therefore, had also right to seek direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against those authorities who did not provide full assistance to the writ petitioner. It is also submitted that earlier also the “antisocial elements” tried to create dispute upon which a case under Sections 144/145 Cr. P.C. was registered. In that fact situation, the plaintiff was not supposed to go into prolonged civil litigation wherein only the petitioner's time will be wasted because of the lengthy procedure. It is also submitted that earlier also the “antisocial elements” tried to create dispute upon which a case under Sections 144/145 Cr. P.C. was registered. In that fact situation, the plaintiff was not supposed to go into prolonged civil litigation wherein only the petitioner's time will be wasted because of the lengthy procedure. It is also submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is only for providing the necessary help to the writ petitioner to safeguard its property for which the appellants cannot be aggrieved. 12. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case. At the outset, we may state that it was because of civil dispute between two sets of private parties, earlier there may be litigation between the descendants of the owner of the property and there may be claim of any agreement creating right in favour of one individual person Janab Salim Saheb, whose suit has been dismissed by the Civil Court and there may be litigation with respect to the right to succeeding property which may have attained finality by grant of Probate in favour of the parties and there may be transfer of the property by those persons in favour of the writ petitioners, but even then, in a fact situation where a suit for declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession was filed by the appellants about three years before filing of the present writ petition, then in that situation, the administrative authorities as well as police authorities were fully justified in not providing any police help to the parties to litigation in Title Suit No. 359 of 2007. In that fact situation, there was no justification for rejection of the appellants' application for being impleaded as party in the writ petition, who were claiming not only a paper title but claiming themselves to be in possession of the property and are seeking declaration of their title by adverse possession in the Title Suit No. 359 of 2007. There was no element of State act in the present controversy as has been set-up by the writ petitioner in the writ petition. There was no element of State act in the present controversy as has been set-up by the writ petitioner in the writ petition. It is well known tactics of the private parties for involving the executives and police authorities in civil dispute matters so as to project before the Court that the writ petitioner is seeking relief against the State whereas in such dispute, in fact, there is no relief against the State or its any instrumentality. This mode is adopted to over-reach the process of the Court and we are constrained to observe that such tactics is adopted to undermine the authority of the Courts by taking help of one pretext or another and by projecting that if the police help will not be provided it will create law and order problem and therefore, it is the duty of the State to protect the interest of such clever person who otherwise could have obtained the appropriate order of even police help from the Court of law. Sometimes, Courts are influenced by the arguments that the civil case will take longer time and during that period the party who approached the court, his interest be safeguarded. While doing so, the Courts may ignore that the civil courts have all the powers under Section 9 C.P.C., much more than any other court, in view of the fact that civil courts can exercise all powers except the powers which have been taken away from Civil Court jurisdiction by statutory provision. Civil Courts also can take care of urgent situation by passing interim order of not only injunction but even appointing receiver and if needed, for providing police help. In that situation, all private disputes between the two parties even for the purpose of obtaining police help, it is always better to leave such dispute for the decision of the Civil Court where Civil Court can look into all aspects and factual matrix which normally, the High Court cannot examine in a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Here, in this case, one of the Directors was already party in the Title Suit No. 359 of 2007 and the Company also could have moved application for being impleaded as party or if it feels that it was not party in the suit, it could have filed suit for appropriate relief in Civil Court and could have prayed for appropriate relief of injunction against the appellants or if needed, for any police help. We are of the considered opinion that the Court must and should carefully separate the dispute between the citizen and the State and the dispute between the private parties. The camouflage should not be allowed to make the writ Court as a Civil Court under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure. 13. From the facts, it appears that the dispute was between the identified parties which is apparent from the copy of the plaint of the Title Suit No. 359 of 2007 and, therefore, those identified parties were entitled to hearing before any order could have been passed with respect to the property which they are claiming of their own. Such opportunity was not given by the learned Single Judge to the appellants in spite of filing the copy of the plaint of Title Suit No. 359 of 2007 on record. The observation of the learned Single Judge that the applicants have submitted application and placed on record, a copy of the plaint of Title Suit No. 359 of 2007 but without assertion that any injunction has been granted or not indicates that it has not been examined whether there was any necessity of any injunction and if it was not even prayed by the appellants then also, the matter was subjudice before the Civil Court where even the defendants could have obtained the relief of injunction as well as even the police help. Therefore, on this ground also, the order of learned Single Judge, rejecting the application of the applicants-appellants, was absolutely illegal. The observation of learned Single Judge permitting the petitioner to move application before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi so as to obtain protection for life, liberty and property of the petitioner from “antisocial elements” also missed the fact that the persons, who have already approached the court of law three years before filing of the present writ petition, could not have been termed as “antisocial elements”. Such type of orders may be a tool in the hands of the administrative authorities and the police authorities to do injustice in the garb of direction and according to learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner, by virtue of the order dated 21.10.2011 only, the writ petitioner could raise the construction of the boundary wall over a property which is the subject matter of the litigation in the Title Suit No. 359 of 2007. Therefore, by this order dated 21.10.2011, one of the parties is allowed to interfere in the property which is the subject matter of the suit. At this juncture, it will be relevant to mention here that the writ petitioner initially tried to take administrative and police help which was not given to it by the administrative and police authorities and when he tried to raise construction of boundary wall, he could not do because of the resistance and the writ petitioner itself admitted that when he tried to construct the boundary wall of his own house, certain antisocial elements attempted to create disturbance whereas it is undisputed fact that known persons tried to take help of law by filing the suit. Therefore, the order dated 21.10.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge proceeded on wrong presumption of fact that some “antisocial elements” are resisting the construction of the boundary wall of the house of the writ petitioner. 14. In view of the above reasons, we are of the considered opinion that learned Single Judge committed error of law by rejecting the application of the appellants for being impleaded as party. Since the matter has been argued on merits by both the parties, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the writ petition was only abuse of process of court for obtaining the relief which could not have been obtained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the private party against the private party as well as wherein several disputed questions of facts are already involved in civil litigation including the dispute of title, therefore, this L.P.A. is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.10.2011 is set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that any observation made above need not to read out of context and observation on merit of claim of any of the party shall not prejudice the case of any party in civil litigation.