JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Writ Petition filed Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to take necessary action against the third respondent, based on the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2005, made in O.S.No.308 of 2002, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai, which was confirmed by the judgment and decree dated 15.09.2008, made in A.S.No.3 of 2006, on the file of the Sub-Court, Kuzhithurai.) 1. The present Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to take necessary action against the third respondent based on the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2005, made in O.S.No.308 of 2002, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai, which was confirmed by the judgment and decree dated 15.09.2008, made in A.S.No.3 of 2006, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Kuzhithurai. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the house property in R.S.No.452/9, measuring an extent of 7 cents, situated at Thengapattanam Village [Erstwhile Panikulam Village], belongs to her husband. After the demise of her husband, the petitioner and her children inherited the said property and they are residing therein. 3. The third respondent's father namely, Mohamed Sali resided as a tenant in a thatched shed. After his death, his children were residing in the Shed, bearing Door No.16/109. In the year 2002, the third respondent and her brother attempted to encroach the land with an intention to expand the thatched shed as a building and their attempts were stopped by the effective intervention of the petitioner's husband. Thereafter, due to the repeated attempts made by the third respondent, the petitioner's husband filed a suit in O.S.No.308 of 2002 before the District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai. The said suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner's husband, as a result of which, permanent injunction was granted as prayed for, vide judgment and decree dated 27.09.2005. 4. Aggrieved over the said judgment and decree dated 27.09.2005, the third respondent filed an appeal in A.S.No.3 of 2006 before the Subordinate Court, Kuzhithurai. The said appeal was dismissed on 15.09.2008, confirming the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2005, made in O.S.No.308 of 2002. Aggrieved over the same, the third respondent filed S.A.(MD)No.359 of 2009 before this Court and the same is pending. 5. The said appeal was dismissed on 15.09.2008, confirming the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2005, made in O.S.No.308 of 2002. Aggrieved over the same, the third respondent filed S.A.(MD)No.359 of 2009 before this Court and the same is pending. 5. The further case of the petitioner is that when at the time her husband was alive, he filed one another suit in O.S.No.138 of 2005, before the I Additional District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai, seeking the relief of recovery of possession and recovery of arrears of rent. The said suit was decreed on 22.06.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner's husband passed away on 17.11.2010. Now only, the petitioner came to know that as against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.138 of 2005, an appeal in A.S.No.63 of 2010 was filed by the third respondent and the same was allowed after setting ex parte, without considering the case on merits. 6. Now, contrary to the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.308 of 2002, the third respondent is making construction in the suit property with the help of the fourth respondent, who is the Sub-Inspector of Police in the second respondent Police Station. Based on the false complaint given by the third respondent, the fourth respondent acted in a biased manner and supported the third respondent for her unlawful construction, thereby, the third respondent violated the order passed by the Civil Court. Therefore, it is necessary to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to take necessary action against the third respondent, for safeguarding the rights having by the petitioner. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials on record. 8. Upon considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that O.S.No.308 of 2002 has been filed by the husband of the petitioner for the relief of permanent injunction, which was ended in favour of the petitioner's husband. Further, the appeal in A.S.No.3 of 2006 preferred by the third respondent against the judgment decree dated 27.09.2005, made in O.S.No.308 of 2020, has been dismissed, vide judgment and decree dated 15.09.2008. Subsequent to that, though S.A.(MD)No.359 of 2009 has been filed before this Court, no interim order has been obtained by diffusing the judgment and decree stands in favour of the petitioner's husband. Subsequent to that, though S.A.(MD)No.359 of 2009 has been filed before this Court, no interim order has been obtained by diffusing the judgment and decree stands in favour of the petitioner's husband. Similarly, in the year 2005, the petitioner and her husband filed one another suit in O.S.No.138 of 2005 against the third respondent herein along with private respondents, seeking the relief of recovery of possession and recovery of arrears of rent. The said suit has also been filed for the same property, which is the subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.308 of 2002. After elaborate enquiry, the learned I Additional District Munsif, Kuzhithurai, had passed a decree as the petitioner and her husband are entitled to the relief of recovery of possession and recovery of arrears of rent. Against which, the third respondent herein and her brother viz., M.Manafdheen preferred an appeal in A.S.No.63 of 2010. The said appeal was decreed ex-parte and thereby, the judgment and decree passed in favour of the petitioner's husband was set aside. 9. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that on a cursory looking of the judgment rendered by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai, in A.S.No.63 of 2010, it seems that the said judgment and decree, are violative of Order 41 Rule 17(2) of C.P.C and therefore, it cannot be construed as the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.138 of 2005, is set aside. 10. Upon considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it is necessary to see Order 41 Rule 17(2) C.P.C., which reads as follows:- ''41.Appeals from original decrees.- 17. Dismissal of appeal for appellant's default.- (2) Hearing appeal ex parte.- Where the appellant appears and the respondent does not appear, the appeal shall be heard ex parte.'' Accordingly, if the respondent does not appear for the hearing, it is the duty vested upon the Presiding Officer to hear the appeal in entirety and only thereupon, he has to pass orders. But, in this case, the learned Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai, passed the following order:- “6 “TAMIL’ 11. But, in this case, the learned Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai, passed the following order:- “6 “TAMIL’ 11. On a close reading of the above said judgment reveals the fact that without considering the evidence recorded by the Trial Court and without considering the exhibits, which were marked during the time of trial, the learned Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai, set aside the judgment and decree dated 22.06.2010, made in O.S.No. 138 of 2005, which is purely illegal. However, the petitioner herein being the aggrieved party, did not file any appeal against the said judgment and decree. Therefore, in the absence of any application to set aside the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.63 of 2010, this Court is not in a position to hold that the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.138 of 2005 is in force. 12. Now, considering the prayer sought for by the petitioner viz., directing the respondents 1 and 2 to take necessary action against the third respondent based on the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2005 made in O.S.No.308 of 2002 and the judgment and decree dated 15.09.2008, made in A.S.No.3 of 2006, as already observed, in respect of the relief of permanent injunction, through the judgment rendered in O.S.No.308 of 2002, a decree has been passed in favour of the petitioner's husband. 13. At this juncture, it is relevant and useful to see the judgment of this Court in Radhika Sri Hari and another Vs. Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore, and others reported in 2014 (2) CTC 695 , wherein it has been held as follows:- ''7. In the aforesaid circumstances, this court considers it appropriate to refer to report of the committee constituted by the Government in G.O. (3D) No.42, Home dated 30.06.2008 towards review of the system of treating complaints relating to money and land matters and to suggest a legally acceptable methodology. The report of such committee touching upon several issues, was accepted by Government. Having done so, under G.O.Ms.No.1580, Home (Pol.VII) Department, dated 24.11.2008, the Director General of Police was required to circulate the report along with the 14 point guidelines annexed to such Government order to police Officers/Stations for appropriate adherence. Under C.No.43/CRB/CSP/2008 dated 08.12.2008, the Commissioner of Police, Chennai Sub-Urban, has caused communications to all Deputy Commissioners, Assistant Commissioners and Inspector of police for necessary action. Guideline 11 issued by the committee reads as follows: "11. Under C.No.43/CRB/CSP/2008 dated 08.12.2008, the Commissioner of Police, Chennai Sub-Urban, has caused communications to all Deputy Commissioners, Assistant Commissioners and Inspector of police for necessary action. Guideline 11 issued by the committee reads as follows: "11. When police protection is sought for the implementation of a civil court order it should be given readily. Police should not insist on a specific court direction to give police protection." 8. What is informed above makes clear that the petitioner would be entitled to police protection as prayed for. Criminal Original Petition is allowed. There will be a direction to respondents to provide police protection to the petitioners for a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order towards enabling them raising fresh barbed wire fences on their property. The same will be at the cost of the petitioner.'' 14. Hence, as per the Guideline 11 issued by the Committee constituted by the Government in G.O.(3D) No.42, Home, dated 30.6.2008, when police protection is sought for, for the implementation of a Civil Court order, it should be given readily. In the instant case also, the petitioner's husband has obtained an order in his favour from the Trial Court and the same is now in force. 15. Therefore, based on the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2005, passed in O.S.No.308 of 2002, the petitioner is entitled to the relief as prayed for. Accordingly, it would be appropriate to issue the following directions:- (i) Upon receipt of the order passed by this Court in this Writ Petition, the petitioner is directed to submit a representation within one week only in respect of the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2005, passed in O.S.No.308 of 2002. (ii) Upon receipt of the said representation, the second respondent is directed to consider the prayer sought for by the petitioner only in accordance with the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2005, passed in O.S.No.308 of 2002. 16. This Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.