G. KRISHNAN Vs. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the Writ Petition is as follows:

(2.) THE petitioner earlier came before this Court by way of a civil revision petition against the order of the trial court refusing to order police protection and for appropriate direction to see that the order of injunction passed in I.A.No.206 of 1990 is not violated and Srinivasan, J., dismissed the said civil revision petition in C.R.P.No.2853/1990 and the said Judgment is reported in G. Krishnan v. Smt. Thulasi Ammal, 1991 1 L.W. 513. While disposing of the Civil Revision petition, the learned Judge considered the question whether the petitioner could move this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to get the police protection to see that the order of injunction passed in I.A.No.206 of 1990 is not violated. At that stage, C.M.A.No.41 of 1990 was pending before the learned District Judge, Madurai which has been withdrawn now it is stated in the Bar.

(3.) HERE is a case where an injunction has been obtained by the petitioner in a Civil suit filed by him in O.S.No.393 of 1990 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Madurai for a permanent injunction restraining the 4th respondent from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner of the suit land and an interim order of injunction was granted in I.A.No.206/1990 in O.S.No.393/1990 on 29.3.1990 after contest and it had become final. In such circumstances, the petitioner has approached, respondents 1 to 3 and has petitioned them regularly right from December 1989 and the latest petition being 20.3.1991. It is seen that the petitioner has submitted a petition to the Inspector General of Police, Madras on 21.3.1990. The complaint of the petitioner is that in spite of various petitions filed by him, respondents 1 to 3 had not registered any case against the 4th respondent, nor investigation was taken up or protection given to the petitioner. It is also stated that since the petitioner has got an order of injunction from a civil court, respondents 1 to 3 have got a duty to give effect to that order and protection asked for ought to have been given to the petitioner.