### Execution of Civil Decree Cannot Be Obtained Through Writ Proceedings Under Article 226 of the Constitution

The petitioner filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a prohibitory relief (injunction) to prevent the respondents—State authorities, Highway officials, and Police—from interfering with the construction of a building on his property.

The petitioner claimed lawful ownership based on a judgment and decree dated 28.04.1995 in O.S. No. 34/1993 (Sub-Court, Chidambaram), which was subsequently upheld by the High Court in A.S. No. 1281/1995 on 27.11.2009.

During the pendency of the Writ Petition, it was brought to the Court's attention that the petitioner had passed away.

Whether a Writ Petition seeking a negative/prohibitory relief to prevent interference with construction is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether a judgment and decree passed by a Civil Court can be executed or enforced through writ proceedings.

The Court applied the principles governing the extraordinary jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It emphasizes that writ proceedings are not a substitute for execution proceedings of a Civil Court's decree.

Relief that is essentially the execution of a private civil right or a decree obtained in a civil suit cannot be sought through the writ jurisdiction.

Furthermore, the court noted the procedural rule regarding the abatement or continuation of proceedings upon the death of a petitioner, where legal heirs must initiate appropriate fresh actions in accordance with law.

The Court analyzed the nature of the relief sought by the petitioner and determined it was "negative" in nature, aimed at restraining authorities from exercising certain powers based on a prior civil decree.

The Bench reasoned that the petitioner was effectively seeking the "execution of judgment and decree" passed in O.S. No. 34 of 1993 through the High Court’s writ jurisdiction.

The Court held that such a remedy is legally impermissible as Article 226 cannot be invoked to execute civil court decrees.

Additionally, since the petitioner had deceased, the cause of action in the current writ format did not survive for immediate adjudication, though the rights of the legal heirs to pursue independent legal remedies remained intact.

It directly answered that a decree from a Sub-Court cannot be enforced via writ proceedings.

Consequently, the Court closed the Writ Petition and the connected Miscellaneous Petition.

The Court granted liberty to the legal heirs of the deceased petitioner to initiate appropriate legal actions to redress their grievances in a manner known to law.

No costs were awarded.