An execution process that does not specify the date on or before which it should be executed is void.

( 1 ) THIS is an application for restoration of possession filed by the defendant/appellant before this Court. This second appeal was admitted by this court on 22/03/1991 and immediately after the admission of the appeal, the application was presented for appropriate order.

( 2 ) THE learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respondent stated on instruction from the respondent No. 1 who was present in court that the respondents had taken possession of two rooms on the ground floor and one room and one bath room on the 1st floor of premises No. 38, S. N. Banerjee Road,barrackpore and that the respondent No. 1 was occupying the said premises after executing the decree. Mr. Sakti Nath Mukherjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the appellants have been forcibly dispossessed by the bailiff with police help even though there was no order from the executing court for any police help. It was submitted that all goods and belongings of the appellant were thrown on the street on 22/03/1991 whereupon this court passed an order directing the Superintendent of Police, 24 Parganas, North to submit a report and to appoint a receiver for preservation of the property under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Munsiff was directed to submit a report under that circumstances such dispossession took place with police force. On affidavits the matter was heard on the question of granting of appropriate order as prayed for by the appellant in view of that dispossession had been taken place. This appeal was presented before this court on 20/01/1991. A report was given on 21/03/1991 and ultimately the matter was heard on 22/03/1991 after the appeal was presented and before the appeal was heard, the dispossession had taken place.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff in this case filed a suit for declaration of title of the suit property and the suit was ultimately dismissed by the trial Court. The lower Appellate Court has reversed the judgment and was pleased to decree the suit in respect of Schedule 'b' property. Under the decree passed by the lower Appellate Court the plaintiff/opposite party was entitled to decree for recovery of possession in respect of Schedule 'b' property from the defendant/appellant No. l. The Appellate Court decreed the suit by the order and judgment dated 13/09/1990 passed in Title Appeals Nos. 89, 90 and 91 of 1989. From the certified copy of the decree passed by the Court below, it appears that"schedule B All that piece and parcel of land measuring 16 x30' about 3/4 kotta out of a schedule property with one pucca room on the western side with some vacant land, on the south of S. N. Banerjee Road, Barrackpore, P. S. Titagarh Dist. 24 Parganas bounded on the north by the S. N. Banerjee Road, on the south the tank of Pradip Chatterjee, on the West by Lalit Pharmacy (plaintiff's own land), on the east by the Kashmira Stores (plaintiff's own land ). "

( 4 ) THE records of the court below were called for. From the records of the Executing Court it appears that an application under Order 21, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for execution of the said decree in respect of the said schedule B property to the plaint, was filed on 14/02/1991 and on 18/02/1991 the learned Munsif, 4th Court, Sealdah was pleased to pass the following order :". . . . Verification made Dhr. files a petition supported by an affidavit praying for taking delivery of possession by breaking open the pad lock and bolt of the door is considered and the prayer is allowed. Requisites already put in. Issue of writ of possession u/o. 21, Rule 35, C. P. C. fixing 20-3-91 for returns and order. "

( 5 ) IT further appears that in the application for execution filed by the plaintiff/respondent, 'b' schedule property was described as follows :"all that piece and parcel of land measuring 16'30" about 3/4 ketta out of A schedule property with one pucca room on the western side with some v