Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

N.Dhayanithi Vs the Commissioner of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

Home
Madras HC
2025
N.Dhayanithi Vs the Commissioner of PoliceN.Dhayanithi v. the Commissioner of Police

Dismissed¶36

N.Dhayanithi v. the Commissioner of Police

Madras HC20 Aug 2025WP/18001/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Police protection writ petition (Article 226 mandamus) dismissed by Madras High Court on 20.08.2025; key terms: enforcement of ex parte injunction decree O.S.No.333 of 2021 (Principal District Munsif Court, Alandur, decree dated 14.12.2022); pending set-aside application I.A.No.1 of 2023 (District Munsif Court, Sholinganallur); police protection not granted as a matter of right; decree-holder may self-enforce injunction decree for violations as per C.P.C.; petitioners N. Dhayanithi and D. Palani vs Commissioner of Police and Semmacheri Police Station officers plus private respondents Mohan, Anbarasu and Monisha; compound wall construction, Sholinganallur; judge N. Sathish Kumar.

What did the court decide?

Police protection cannot be granted as a matter of right, even assuming that respondents 4 to 6 are trying to interfere with the petitioners' possession.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should issue a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 (police officials) to provide police protection to the petitioners so as to enforce the Judgment and Decree dated 14.12.2022 in O.S.No.333 of 2021 and enable completion of construction work (compound wall) at No.18, Anna Street, Sholinganallur, notwithstanding the pending I.A.No.1 of 2023 to set aside the ex parte decree.

Court's answer

Police protection cannot be granted as a matter of right, even assuming that respondents 4 to 6 are trying to interfere with the petitioners' possession.

Ratio / Principle

A petitioner armed with a decree of injunction can enforce the decree himself for any violation as per C.P.C.; hence the Court declined to mandate police protection through the writ.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (N. Sathish Kumar, J.), W.P.No.18001 of 2023, decided 20.08.2025: Petitioners N. Dhayanithi and D. Palani sought a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing respondents 1 to 3 (Commissioner of Police, Inspector and Sub Inspector, Semmacheri Police Station) to provide police protection to enforce the Judgment and Decree dated 14.12.2022 in O.S.No.333 of 2021 (decreed ex parte by Principal District Munsif Court, Alandur for permanent injunction against respondents 4 to 6) and to complete construction of a compound wall at No.18, Anna Street, Sholinganallur. Counsel for respondents 4 to 6 disclosed pending I.A.No.1 of 2023 to set aside the ex parte decree, since transferred to the newly constituted District Munsif Court, Sholinganallur. The Court held that police protection cannot be granted as a matter of rights even assuming interference with possession, and that a petitioner armed with an injunction decree can enforce it for any violation as per C.P.C.; the Writ Petition was dismissed without costs.

A

W.P.No.18001 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 20.08.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

W.P.No.18001 of 2023

1.N.Dhayanithi

2.D.Palani Both are residing at No.18, Anna Street, Sholinganallur,

Chennai - 600 119.

Petitioners

versus

1.The Commissioner of Police, No.132, EVK Sampath Road, Chennai.

2.The Inspector, Semmacheri Police Station, Sholinganallur, Chennai - 600 119.

3.The Sub Inspector, Semmacheri Police Station, Sholinganallur, Chennai - 600 119.

4.Mohan, S/o.Govindasami

5.Anbarasu, S/o.Mohan

6.Monisha, W/o.Anbarasu Nos.4 to 6 are residing at No.19, Anna Street, Sholinganallur, Chennai - 600 119. ...

Respondents

1/5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.18001 of 2023

Prayer

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to enforce the Judgment and Decree dated 14.12.2022 passed in O.S.No.333 of 2021, on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Alandur by providing police protection to the petitioners in order to enable the petitioners to complete the construction work at No.18, Anna Street, Sholinganallur, Chennai - 600 119, situate at S.No.664/1, Sholinganallur No.155, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpatu District.

For Petitioners : Mr.T.S.Baskaran For Respondents : Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1 to R3 Mr.V.Vijayakumar - R4 to R6

O R D E R

This Writ Petition is filed to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to provide

police protection to the petitioners t o construct a compound wall.

2 . According to the petitioners, they have filed a suit in O.S.No.333 of 2021 for permanent injunction against the private

respondents herein and the same was also decreed ex parte . Therefore, now they want to construct a compound wall for which the police protection is

required, as the respondents 4 to 6 are causing disturbance.

2/5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.18001 of 2023

3 . Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 6 submitted that he has already filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree in I.A.No.1 of 2023 and now, it is transferred to the newly constituted Court at the District Munsif Court, Sholinganallur.

4 . In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the police protection cannot be granted as a matter of right even assuming that the respondents 4 to 6 are trying to interfere with the possession. If the petitioners armed with the decree of injunction, they can very well enforce the same for any violation as per C.P.C.

5 . In view of the above, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

20.08.2025

Speaking order / Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No

sri

3/5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.18001 of 2023

To

1.The Commissioner of Police, No.132, EVK Sampath Road, Chennai.

2.The Inspector, Semmacheri Police Station, Sholinganallur, Chennai - 600 119.

3.The Sub Inspector, Semmacheri Police Station, Sholinganallur, Chennai - 600 119.

4/5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.18001 of 2023

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

sri

W.P.No.18001 of 2023

20.08.2025

5/5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the Court should issue a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 (police officials) to provide police protection to the petitioners so as to enforce the Judgment and Decree dated 14.12.2022 in O.S.No.333 of 2021 and enable completion of construction work (compound wall) at No.18, Anna Street, Sholinganallur, notwithstanding the pending I.A.No.1 of 2023 to set aside the ex parte decree.¶23
The court held
Police protection cannot be granted as a matter of right, even assuming that respondents 4 to 6 are trying to interfere with the petitioners' possession.ratio¶35

Statutes considered

2 provisions across 2 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226¶23
Code of Civil ProcedureC.P.C.¶35

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Suit O.S.No.333 of 2021 for permanent injunction filed by petitioners against the private respondents (4 to 6); Judgment and Decree dated 14.12.2022 issued by Principal District Munsif Court, Alandur.¶23
Prior proceeding
The suit was decreed ex parte against the private respondents.¶29
Prior proceeding
Counsel for respondents 4 to 6 had already filed I.A.No.1 of 2023 to set aside the ex parte decree; the application was transferred to the newly constituted District Munsif Court, Sholinganallur.¶34

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
1.N.Dhayanithi¶7
Mr.T.S.Baskaran
petitioner
2.D.Palani¶8
Mr.T.S.Baskaran
respondent
The Commissioner of Police, No.132, EVK Sampath Road, Chennai.¶12
Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
respondent
The Inspector, Semmacheri Police Station, Sholinganallur, Chennai - 600 119.¶13
Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
respondent
The Sub Inspector, Semmacheri Police Station, Sholinganallur, Chennai - 600 119.¶14
Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
respondent
Mohan, S/o.Govindasami¶15
Mr.V.Vijayakumar
respondent
Anbarasu, S/o.Mohan¶16
Mr.V.Vijayakumar
respondent
Monisha, W/o.Anbarasu¶17
Mr.V.Vijayakumar

Coram

AI extract

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMARauthor¶5

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 20 Aug 2025 · August
Registered: 14 Jun 2023
Case no.: WP/18001/2023
CNR: HCMA011044942023
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: W.P.

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from N. Sathish Kumar

Surya @ Nedungundram Surya, Vs the Commissioner of Police
19 Aug 2025
Mahendiran Vs Station House Officer
19 Aug 2025
Kukkala Venkata Rama Vidya Sagar Vs M/S.Gimpex Limited Rep by
19 Aug 2025
Dr.v.E.Shiva Vs Superintendent of police
20 Aug 2025
C.Saraswathi Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer
20 Aug 2025
K.Palaniappan Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer
20 Aug 2025

Cite this judgement

N.Dhayanithi v. the Commissioner of Police, WP/18001/2023 (MAD), decided on 20 August 2025.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes2

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226
Code of Civil ProcedureC.P.C.

View all statutes

Procedural history3

Suit O.S.No.333 of 2021 for permanent injunction filed by petitioners against the private respondents (4 to 6); Judgment and Decree dated 14.12.2022 issued by Principal District Munsif Court, Alandur.
The suit was decreed ex parte against the private respondents.

View full history

Bench / Coram

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

Parties & counsel