- (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent.
(2.) 1. According to the petitioner, the property in Door no. 171/68, Cherry Road , Salemtown belonged to one Kandasamy , which was leased out to one P. L. Palanisamy , who in turn, sub-let the same to him, wherein he is running his office. The owner of the property illegally removed the petitioner's name board. Therefore, the petitioner filed a civil suit in O. S. No. 1651 of 2004 on the file of district Munsif Court, Salem for permanent injunction restraining P. L. Palanisamy , viz. , the lessor and Kandasamy , the owner, not to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the office and not to evict him, except under due process of law, along with two applications in I. A. No. 1016 of 2004 for interim injunction and I. A. No. 1017 of 2004 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. In I. A. No. 1017 of 2004, an Advocate commissioner was appointed and he had filed his report along with a plan on 14. 7. 2004. I. A. No. 1016 of 2004 for interim injunction was allowed on 29. 11. 2004. 2. 2. On 21. 11. 2004, the petitioner found his office lock broke open by Kandasamy , along with some goondas and some case bundles were found missing. Since the police complaint given by the petitioner to the Inspector of Police, Salem Town police Station was not registered, he forwarded the same to the higher Police officials and the Chief Minister's Cell. Thereafter, a case in F. I. R. No. 3032 of 2004 on 9. 12. 2004 under Section 145 Cr. P. C. was registered by the Inspector of police, Salem Police Station, which was forwarded to the first respondent, who, by proceedings dated 26. 2. 2005 made in Na. Ka. No. 143/2005/a2, directed the second respondent to seal the office in dispute, to avoid law and order problem. 2. 3. Kandasamy filed a petition in Crl. O. P. 6513 of 2005 on the file of this Court on 31. 8. 2005 to quash the proceedings of the first respondent dated 26. 2. 2005 made in na. Ka. No. 143/2005/a2, which was ordered as prayed for. But the petitioner was not impleaded as a party to the said petition. The counsel appeared for Kandasamy informed the District Munsif Court about the order made in the said petition. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a letter to the first respondent about his possession of the property, pursuant to the order of injunction against Kandasamy and P. L. Palanisamy. After the receipt of petitioner's letter, the first respondent forwarded the proceedings dated 30. 9. 2005 to the second respondent and the Inspector of police, Salem Town Police Station to conduct an enquiry about the possession and documents of the property and to remove the seal and hand over possession to the concerned person and to send a report of the same, but no action was taken. In the meantime, Kandasamy broke open the seal and demolished the physical features of the building, about which the petitioner made a complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Salem. However, no action was taken. 2. 4. In the meanwhile, the petitioner came to know that P. L. Palanisamy filed a suit for recovery of money and permanent injunction against Kandasamy in O. S. No. 282 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Sub-Judge, Salem and I. A. No. 521 for attachment before judgment and I. A. No. 522 of 2005 for injunction. The first respondent issued summon dated 11. 11. 2005 to P. L. Palanisamy to appear before him on 14. 11. 2005 at 4 pm for enquiry. Contending that when he is in possession of the property by virtue of an order of injunction, Kandasamy had unlawfully took possession by demolishing and altering the physical features of the property, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to give opportunity to the petitioner of being heard in Na. Ka. 10082/2005 (A2) dated 11. 11. 2005 and to further direct the respondents to hand over the possession of the office to the petitioner. In this regard, it would be apt to refer the decision of the Supreme Court in Jhummamal V. State Of M.P. ( (1998) 4 SCC 452), wherein it is held that a party should not be permitted to litigate before the criminal court when the civil suit is pending in respect of the same subject matter and that does not mean that a concluded order under Section 145, Cr. P. C. made by the Magistrate of competent jurisdiction should be set at naught merely because the unsuccessful party has approached the civil Court. An order made under section 145, Cr. P. C. deals only with the factum of possession of the party as on a particular day and it confers no title to remain in possession of the disputed property. The order is subject to decision of the civil Court and therefore, the unsuccessful party must get relief only in the civil Court. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner obtained an order of interim injunction in I. A. No. 1016 of 2004. However, at the instance of the owner and the tenant, a proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. was initiated. Since it is the complained that the petitioner is a sub tenant with the knowledge of the owner and he had not been given an opportunity of being heard and considering the very narrow scope of the writ petition and in view of the decision cited supra, suffice it to direct the respondents to give an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard with respect to the proceedings made in Na. Ka. 10082/2005 (A2) dated 11. 11. 2005 and thereafter, to decide the matter with regard to handing over of the possession in accordance with law, which shall be subject to the decision in the civil proceedings between the parties referred to above. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. .;