The Madras High Court has reaffirmed that litigants seeking removal of obstruction to a civil court decree must pursue remedies under the Civil Procedure Code, and cannot seek police protection through a writ petition under Article 226. The decision upholds longstanding procedural law, is binding on subordinate courts, and has high precedential value for future police protection petitions arising from execution of civil decrees.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name |
WP/23843/2024 of KRISHNARAJ Vs STATE REP. BY CNR HCMA011457172024 |
| Date of Registration | 12-08-2024 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR |
| Court | Madras High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction; reaffirms existing law |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure/Constitutional Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether a writ of mandamus can be maintained to seek police protection for enforcement of a civil court decree when remedy exists under Order XXI CPC? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court held that when there is obstruction in execution of a civil court decree from third parties, the appropriate remedy is to approach the Executing Court under Order XXI of CPC for removal of obstruction. Seeking a general writ direction for police protection under Article 226 is not maintainable when a specific statutory remedy is available. The writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass the established process under the CPC. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner obtained a decree for specific performance, overcame appeals, executed the sale deed, and partitioned the property. Alleging that third parties (induced by respondent 3) obstruct use of the land, the petitioner sought a writ mandamus for police protection. The Court held the petition was not maintainable as Order XXI CPC provides the proper remedy. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Madras High Court jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
| Follows | Procedural principles under Order XXI CPC regarding execution of decrees |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment re-emphasises that writ remedy under Article 226 cannot be invoked for police protection in aid of enforcement of decrees where Order XXI CPC provides adequate relief.
- Counsel representing decree-holders must seek execution remedies through the civil court (Executing Court) and not file writ petitions for police protection.
- The order signals a strict approach toward maintainability of police protection writs where specific statutory remedies exist.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court reviewed the materials and categorically stated that the maintainability of the writ petition cannot be comprehended where a statutory remedy is available.
- It clarified that the correct forum for removal of obstruction to a decree is the Executing Court under Order XXI of the Civil Procedure Code.
- Filing a writ for a general direction for police protection is not permissible when the law provides a specific mechanism.
- The petition, lacking merit under this legal framework, was dismissed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Petitioner had a civil court decree for specific performance, with sale and partition deeds executed.
- Alleged that third parties, induced by the third respondent, were raising disputes and obstructing enjoyment of property.
- Sought police protection by writ of mandamus.
Respondent
No detailed counter-arguments were elaborated in the judgment as the dismissal was on maintainability.
Factual Background
The petitioner, having obtained a civil court decree for specific performance in O.S.No.20 of 1990 (confirmed on appeal and a subsequent second appeal abated), executed the sale deed and partition deed. On attempting to take possession/enjoy the decreed lands, the petitioner faced obstruction from third parties allegedly induced by respondent no. 3. A representation was made to the police; as relief was not forthcoming, the writ petition seeking police protection was filed.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court examined the applicability of Order XXI of the Civil Procedure Code, which provides for execution of decrees and removal of obstructions (including against third parties obstructing possession).
- Declared that when such specific statutory remedy is available, invoking Article 226 for police protection is inappropriate and not maintainable.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law re-affirmed; no change or overruling of precedent.