RAJASEKHAR MANTHA, J. - (1.) The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that despite a decree for declaration of his title to a property and permanent injunction restraining the private respondents from disturbing his possession, the police authorities have not acted on a complaint lodged by him.
(2.) In support of his contention, the writ petitioner relies upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.R. Murlidharan and Ors. v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar and Ors., reported in (2006) 4 SCC 501. In the said decision, the writ petitioner relies particularly on paragraph 19 of the judgment which is set out hereinbelow: "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 when too in furtherance of the decree or order."
(3.) He says that the said decision supports his contentions that without putting decree into execution he is entitled to police protection per se based on the decree.;