ASHA MUKUL PAL, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under Section 115 of the Civil P. C. made by the judgment-debtor against the order passed by the learned 2nd Munsiff at Sealdah on 19-12-81, dismissing the application of the petitioner (judgment-debtor) made under Section 115 (Section 151?) of the Civil P. C. for vacating the Order No. 16 passed by the Court on 17-3-81 under Order 21, Rule 97 for police help for execution of the decree originally passed.

( 2 ) THE learned Munsiff has recounted history of this case in the impugned order with reference to the conduct of the petitioner and refused to grant any relief under Section 151 of the Civil P. C. He stated that there were unsuccessful attempts of the petitioner (judgment-debtor) for stay of execution particularly on the plea that he would prefer a second appeal in the Hon'ble High Court. Some time was granted. Three months thereafter another application was made for stay on the ground that the judgment-debtor will file an appeal in the Supreme Court. Direction was made by the Court to put in a sum of Rupees 20,000/- before such a stay could be granted. The money was not deposited and the application was ultimately rejected and the execution case was allowed to be proceeded with. Learned Munsiff held that the application was a vexatious one. It was only an attempt to enjoy the interest which he had decidedly been denied by the Court of justice. "i do not find it to be a fit case where I may invoke the inherent power under Section 151 of the Civil P. C. "

( 3 ) MR. Mitra, Counsel for the petitioner argued that the application that was made for police help was time barred by the Laws of Limitation under Article 129 of the Limitation Act. He referred to me the Nazir's report dated 2nd December 1980 and argued that as resistance was made on 2-12-80 for possession the application could be made but this should have been made within a period of 30 days as provided under Article 129 of the Limitation Act. As the application was made on 9th of January, 1981, the application was time barred.

( 4 ) I am not inclined to accept the contention of Mr. Mitra. The limitation for possession after removing the resistance or obstruction to delivery of possession to immovable property decreed is 30 days after the date of resistance or obstruction but the application for police help cannot come within this category. It is not by itself an application for possession nor is it an application under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Civil P. C. In an application for police help the applicant's prayer is to give him the aid of the police for executing the decree for possession which is the ultimate object. The application for police help is different from the main application. It is a subsidiary application to the main application for execution. In this connection I may refer to a judgment reported in (Gaya Nath v. Amulya Chandra ). The said judgment supports the view that an application for police help is essentially different from an application under Order 21, Rule 97.

( 5 ) IT is common knowledge that police help is sought for in the matter of execution when there is apprehension of breach of peace. It is resorted to for the sake of security for all connected with the execution. The apprehension of the breach of peace generally is one of the main grounds for such an application for police help. Court has to scrutinise the facts and circumstances to ascertain whether such a prayer would be allowed before it is granted. The application for police help is not an application for execution within the meaning under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Civil P. C. The person seeking to execute will make an application to the Court if obstructed complaining of any resistance or obstruction as provided under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Civil P. C. and if such a complaint is made other provisions of Order 21, Rule 97 will follow. But police help is entirely different. If the decree cannot be executed without police help be-caus

Click Here to Read the rest of this document