2006 Supreme(Online)(SC) 25
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J
P.R. Murlidharan & Ors – Appellant
Versus
Swami Dharamanda Theertha Padar & Ors – Respondent
Appeal (civil) 1634 of 2006 | SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 22268 OF 2004
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Not mentioned
For the Respondents: Not mentioned
The issuance of a writ of mandamus for property protection requires prior adjudication of rights by a civil court.
Headnote:The judgment considers the appropriate application of Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding issuing writs of mandamus for civil rights claims. The Court states that seeking protection without established possession in civil court is an abuse of process. The appeal is allowed, and the High Court’s decision is set aside.
JUDGMENT
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 22268 OF 2004)
P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.
1. I respectfully agree with the reasoning and conclusion of my learned Brother and agree\that the appeal as to be allowed and the decision of the High Court set aside.
2. A Writ Petition under the guise of seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to give protection to a Writ Petitioner, cannot be made a forum for adjudicating on civil rights. It is one thing to approach the High Court, for issuance of such a writ on a plea that a particular party has not obeyed a decree or an order of injunction passed in favour of the Writ Petitioner, was deliberately flouting that decree or order and in spite of the petitioner applying for it, the police authorities are not giving him the needed protection in terms of the decree or order passed by a court with jurisdiction. But, it is quite another thing to seek a writ of mandamus directing protection in respect of property, status or right which remains to be adjudicated upon and when such an adjudication can only be got done in a properly instituted civil suit. It would be an abuse of process for a Writ Petitioner to approach the High Court under
3. In the case on hand, various disputed questions arose based on a deed of trust and the facts pleaded by the Writ Petitioner and controverted by the other side. The High Court should have normally directed the Writ Petitioner to have his rights adjudicated upon, in an appropriate suit in a civil court. The fact that a Writ Petitioner may be barred from approaching the civil court, in view of Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure , or some other provisions, is no ground for the High Court to take upon itself, under
4. A writ for "police protection" so-called, has only a limited scope, as, when the court is approached for protection of rights declared by a decree or by an order passed by a civil court. It cannot be extended to cases where rights have not been determined either finally by the civil court or, at least at an interlocutory stage in an unambiguous manner, and then too in furtherance of the decree or order.
5. Having said this, I agree with my learned