JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, directing the respondents 1 to 4 herein to provide adequate police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner and for the agricultural works in the lands comprised in S.Nos.198/6A, 199/1, 204/3 B, 204/2 of Seikipatti Village, Melur Taluk, Madurai District, by considering his representation dated 05.10.2020 within the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.)

1. When police protection is sought for, towards the implementation of a civil court order, whether it is justifiable on the part of the police to insist upon a specific court order to give police protection. This is the issue raised in the present petition seeking direction to the Police to give police protection

(a) to the life and limb of the petitioner, and

(b) for the agricultural work in the lands comprised in SF.Nos.198/6A, 199/1, 204/3B, 204/2 of Seikipatti Village, Melur Taluk, Madurai District, which is also the subject matter of the civil court decree granted in O.S.No.25/2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Madurai.

2. The issue raised is all the more critical when there is a G.O i.e., G.O.NO.1580, Home Department dated 24.11.2008 which reads as follows:-

''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.''

3. The question to be answered is painful when this Hon'ble Court in umpteen number of cases 10 of which are specifically relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterate that 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.

4. Brief facts:-

The subject matter of property originally belonged to the family Trust created by one M. Somasundaram Chettiar vide Document No.934/1940 and is administered by his grandson K.R. Somasundaram Chettiar. The petitioner claims that he is the lessee of the property and that the respondents 5 and 6 are also claiming tenancy rights in the capacity as cultivating tenant. The civil suit filed by the petitioner before the Sub Court, Madurai in O.S.25/2008 seeking the relief of permanent injunction has crystalised into a decree and it has also attained finality.

4.1. The respondents 5 and 6 claimed that it is an exparte decree and that the remedy open to the petitioner is only to file an execution petition and not the present petition for direction. The respondents 5 and 6 claim that they have already moved the Tahsildar, Melur to record their names in the record of tenancy and the applications filed by the respondents 5 and 6 in TR.13/2006 and T.R.13/2008 are pending and that when the applications are pending consideration, there is a bar of jurisdiction under Section 16-A of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Land Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969, and therefore, the decree passed without jurisdiction is null and void and the present petition for direction based upon that decree is not valid.

5. The first question to be answered is whether this petition for direction based upon a civil court decree, is null and void or a valid decree. The contention of the respondents 5 and 6 that the decree is a void decree is baseless. The further contention that it is an exparte decree is also invalid. It is not as if that the respondents 5 and 6 remained exparte without contesting the proceedings in O.S.No.25/2008. When the suit was posted for the evidence of the defendants, the counsel for the defendants have reported no instructions and the suit was decreed on 20.04.2010. Thereafter, the respondents 5 and 6 filed I.A.No.49/2015 in O.S.No.25/2008 with an application to condone the delay of 1651 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree that was dismissed on 13.12.2017. Challenging the same, CRP(MD)(NPD)No.2016/2018 filed was also dismissed on 17.09.2018. Thu