K.Rathinasamy v. Kasinathan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09-03-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI and CMP.No.6014 of 2026

1. K.Rathinasamy S/o.Late.Kannaiyan No.32, Edatheru, Thirunallar Communue Karaikal.

Petitioner(s) Vs

1. Kasinathan S/o.Soundarrasu, West Street, Dr.ambedkar, Nagar, Thirunallar Commune, Karaikal 2.Pushpavalli W/o. Soundarrasu West Street Dr.Ambedkar Nagar Thirunallar Commune, Karaikal Respondent(s) PRAYER Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, prays to set aside the order dt. 05.12.2025 in I.A No. 4 of 2025 in OS No. 10 of 2025 on the file of the Court of Additional District Munsif at Karaikal. For Petitioner(s):

R.Thenamirtha Shyamala K.Ramya For Respondent:

ORDER

Challenging the impugned order passed in I.A. No.4 of 2025, the plaintiff has filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

2. Before the trial Court, the petitioner/plaintiff obtained an interim injunction in I.A. No.4 of 2025. Despite the same, according to the petitioner, the defendants has been interfering whenever the plaintiff attempts to cultivate the land. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application seeking police protection to enable him to enjoy the property. However, the said application was dismissed by the trial Court. Though the respondents/defendants did not file any objection before the trial Court, the present revision has been preferred.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though an interim order was granted in favour of the plaintiff, the defendants continues to create disturbances and prevent the plaintiff from enjoying the property. Hence, the petitioner was constrained to seek police protection. However, the trial Court failed to properly appreciate the facts and dismissed the application.

4. On considering the submissions made on both sides, it is seen that the respondents had not filed any objection before the trial Court. The relief sought by the plaintiff/revision petitioner before the trial Court was for police protection based on the apprehension that the defendants may interfere if he starts cultivating the land. As on date, no specific instance of interference has been placed before the Court by the plaintiff.

5. The trial Court has rightly held that police protection can be granted only in exceptional circumstances and not merely on the basis of apprehension or in a pre-emptive manner. Therefore, the reasons assigned by the trial Court do not require any interference by this Court.

6. However, since the plaintiff has already been granted an order of interim injunction, if any interference is caused by the defendants, liberty is granted to the petitioner / plaintiff to approach the jurisdictional police, who shall take necessary action in accordance with law.

7. In view of the above, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. 09-03-2026 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes rri

To 1.Kasinathan S/o.Soundarrasu, West Street, Dr.ambedkar, Nagar, Thirunallar Commune, Karaikal 2.Pushpavalli W/o. Soundarrasu West Street Dr.Ambedkar Nagar Thirunallar Commune, Karaikal.

3. The Additional District Munsif, Karaikal.

4.The Section Officer, VR section, High Court of Madras.

T.V.THAMILSELVI J.

rri 09-03-2026