ORDER

Leave granted.

2. We have heard the learned counsel on both sides.

3. A compound wall was admittedly constructed at Police Lines in Nizamabad Town in Andhra Pradesh, statedly to protect the police quarters. A suit was filed in OS No. 123 of 1991 on the file of the District Munsif, Nizamabad for demolition of the wall on the ground that the police construction of the wall had obstructed public way. Decree was granted, though ex-parte on September 12, 1991 since the police refused to receive the notice. The execution application was laid by the decree-holder on December 1, 1991. The Court had issued notice on execution. Thereafter, warrant was issued on February 7, 1996 for demolition of the wall. The warrant was entrusted to one Shri Madhusudhan Bhat for enforcement. He went along with Venkaiah, another bailiff, Syed Ahmad Ali and G. Vinayak Raj process survers, along with workmen to the site to demolish the constructed wall. While they were in the process of demolishing the wall, it is now clear from the record that Circle Inspector of Police, Narasimha Raju, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Laxminarayana and other police force had gone there and obstructed the execution of the warrant. They took the court officers to the police station. It is the report of the bailiffs that they were wrongly confined in the police station, despite the fact that they had informed that they are Court Officers and had came to the spot with their duty to execute the warrant. On the basis of that report, a complaint came to be filed and is pending decision. So, we need not proceed further on that issue.

4. When the matter was brought to our notice in the appeal filed by the Government agent on the refusal to set aside ex-parte decree, we had taken suo motu action and issued notice on April 21, 1996 to Circle Inspector of Police, 4-Town, Narasimha Raju, Sub-Inspector of Police, 4-Town, P.S. Laxminarayana and Head Constable Murali, 4-Town Police Station, Niranjan, Head Constable, 4-Town Police Station and Hameed, Reserve Sub-Inspector, Special Party. Pursuant thereto, Narasimha Raju, Circle Inspector of Police and the Sub-Inspector of Police Laxminarayana admitted their presence and stated that there were extenuating circumstances; they pleaded that there was a commotion; law and order problem was created by the mob on account of pelting stone by the police personnel and the public at each other. There were about 300 to 400 people gathered there. To disburse the mob, they had used force to defuse law and order situation. They pleaded that they did not know that the court officers had come there to demolish the wall. As a consequence they had no intention to violate the orders of the court in execution of the warrant. In view of those statements, we directed the District Judge, Nizamabad to examine the persons and submit the report with his findings. The learned District Judge in his report dated July 19, 1996 has recorded the findings that Madhusudhan Bhatt and the above said court officers and workmen had gone to execute the warrant for demolition of the wall. He found that the Central Nazir had entrusted to P. Venkaiah, and G. Vinayak Raj ad hoc S.A. Ali but Central Nazir has no power to direct them to accompany Madhusudhan Bhatt and Venkaiah to execute the warrant. The plea of the Inspector and the Sub-Inspector that there was a commotion and law and order problem, was found false and baseless; no one sustained any injury by either side nor was any complaint registered in that behalf. The court officers informed them that they had gone there with the warrant to demolish the compound wall and the Sub-Inspector pushed one of the bailiffs forcibly into the police jeep. This is also an admitted position that they had taken the court officers to the police station. Whether or not the court officers were wrongly confined in the police station, is a matter now pending trial. Therefore, we need not go into the question.

5. The question is : whether the pol