SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 22355

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J
V.SRINIVASA RAO – Appellant
Versus
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF P – Respondent



Civil court orders require police support for enforcement, ensuring compliance with lawful directives.

Headnote:

Protection - Court Order - Civil Procedure Code - Sections 36, 37 - Court affirmed the necessity of police protection for bailiff actions under civil court directives, emphasizing the enforcement of lawful orders.

Fact of the Case:

A writ petition was filed seeking police protection to enable a bailiff to break open a property pursuant to orders from a civil court for possession, which had not been acted upon despite prior representations.

Issues: Whether the third respondent is obliged to provide police protection to facilitate the bailiff in executing a civil court order.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the enforcement of civil court orders necessitates police assistance when stipulated, reinforcing the inherent authority of such orders.

Final Decision: The writ petition is allowed, directing the police to provide necessary aid for execution.

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the third respondent to provide police protection based on the representations given by the petitioner on 19.02.2024 and 03.03.2024 in order to break open and to take possession of the property pursuant to the order passed by the XV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, dated 13.02.2024.

2. Heard Mr.R.Rajarathinam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner and Mr.A.Damodaran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents.

3. In the considered view of this Court, the jurisdictional Court has already passed an order in E.P.No.278 of 2023, dated 13.02.2024 as follows:

"EA 3/2024 - The Petitioner Decree holder filed this petition seeking Police aid for the bailiff so as to enable him her to execute the warrant. Already delivery was ordered in this EP. The Bailiff reports reveals that the warrant could not be executed for want of police protection order. Thus in order to execute the warrant police aid becomes necessary. Hence in the interest of justice and also meet the ends of justice this Court is inclined to allow this petition. In the result this petition is allowed. The Inspector of police jurisdiction concerned is directed to give necessary police protection so as to enable the bailiff to execute the warrant. There is no order as to Cost. EA 4/2024 - The Petitioner Decree Holder filed this petition to permit the bailiff to break open the lock in the Petition premises so as to execute the warrant. Already delivery was ordered in this EP. The Bailiff reports shows that the warrant could not be executed for want of order for break open the lock. Thus in order to execute the warrant the order for permitting the bailiff to break open the lock of the schedule premises becomes necessary. Hence in the interest of justice and also to meet the ends of justice this court is inclined to allow this application. In the result this petition is allowed. The Bailiff is permitted to break open the lock in the petitioner premises in order to execute the warrant. There is no order as to Cost. EP 278/2023 - Fresh delivery order is passed police aid and break open petition filed on 10.04.2023 and allowed. Fresh Delivery by

13.3.2024."

4. Pursuant to the above order, the petitioner made two representations to the third respondent requesting for police aid in order to enable the bailiff to break open the premises and to take possession. Since the same was not acted upon, the present writ petition has been filed.

5. It is clear from the records that a competent civil Court has already directed the bailiff to take possession of the property and the Court has also directed to give police aid at the time of breaking open the property. Under such circumstances, the third respondent is bound to act upon the order passed by the civil Court.

6. Hence, there shall be a direction to the third respondent to act upon the order passed by the civil Court in order to enable the bailiff to break open the premises and take possession of the property.

This Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.

25.03.2024 Index : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order Neutral Citation : Yes/No gm To

1. The Deputy Commissioner of Police

148, 138, Kutchery Road, Madhavaperumalpuram Mylapore, Chennai,Tamil Nadu – 600 004

2. The Assistant Commissioner of Police Gaudiya Mutt Road, Azad Nagar Royapettah, Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 014

3. The Inspector of Police Law & Order, E-2 Royapettah Police Station Royapettah, Chennai

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J gm

25.03.2024

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top