learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that the petitioner has not placed the real facts before the Court. There was a litigation between the predecessor in interest of the 4th respondent on the one hand and the predecessors in interest of the petitioner on the other. In such litigations, the predecessor in interest of the 4th respondent had succeeded. Though subsequently there was a sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner, the agreement to purchase larger extent of property from the 4th respondent by the petitioner has not been complied with. Consequent disputes have arisen. In fact, the 4th respondent had earlier obtained an order of police protection against the litigant in Ext.R4(a), from whom the petitioner now claims to have acquired rights. In any view of the matter, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent submits that this is not a dispute that can be resolved in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution and if the petitioner has any genuine grievance, he must go to the civil court and seek appropriate orders. The petitioner is attempting to steal a march over the 4th respondent by claiming directions for police protection and describing the dispute to be a law and order dispute.
