Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2455 (MAD)

P. Govindasamy v. Kundumani

2013-07-15

K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU

body2013
Judgment :- 1. This civil revision petition is filed against the order made in R.E.A.No. 19 of 2004 in O.S.No. 1170 of 1980 dated 27.2.2004 wherein and whereby, the Court below has rejected the application filed by the petitioner seeking for police protection so as to enable him to enjoy the suit properties peacefully. 2. Heard Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Vimalkumar, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. 3. In this case, the petitioner is the second plaintiff and decree holder in a suit for declaration and injunction. The suit came to be decreed ex-parte on 17.10.1995 and an appeal filed in A.S.No. 35 of 1998 also came to be dismissed on 27.2.2000. When there was an attempt to disturb the petitioner's enjoyment of the suit property in pursuant to the decree granted by the trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court, the present application in R.E.A.No. 19 of 2004 came to be filed by the petitioner seeking police protection for enabling him to enjoy the suit property peacefully. The Court below has rejected the said application by following the decision of this Court reported in G. Krishnan – Vs. - Thulasi Ammal (1991, 1, L.W.513), wherein it was observed that the police protection cannot be given in the exercise of power under Section 151 C.P.C. by the Courts. But the Court below has failed to take note of the further development that the said order of the learned single Judge was considered by the Division Bench of this Court and a decision has been made by the Hon'ble Division Bench in Sri-la-Sri Sivasubramanyananda Swami – Vs.- Sri-la-Sri Arunachalasamy & others ( 1992, T.N.L.J. 120), that the Civil Court has got power to issue directions to the police officials in appropriate cases to extend their aid and assistance in execution of the orders of the Civil Court. It appears that the above subsequent decision of the Division Bench of this Court was not brought to the knowledge of the Court below. 4. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench cited above, I am of view that the stand taken by the Court below in rejecting the application is not sustainable and accordingly, the order of the Court below is liable to be set aside and the same is accordingly set aside. 4. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench cited above, I am of view that the stand taken by the Court below in rejecting the application is not sustainable and accordingly, the order of the Court below is liable to be set aside and the same is accordingly set aside. However, since the application came to be filed in the year 2004 by complaining that there was some disturbance by the respondents against the enjoyment of the suit property by the petitioner, he is at liberty to file a fresh application before the Court below if there is any future attempt of prevention by the respondents in enjoying the suit property as per the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.1170 of 1980. If any such application is filed by the petitioner, it is for the Court below to consider the same and pass orders in accordance with law also by taking note of the above said decision of the Division Bench of this Court . 5. With the above observations, this civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.