JUDGMENT :

(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)

1. This appeal is at the instance of a judgement-debtor/resistor challenging an order dated March 20, 2023 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.A. 5402 of 2023.

2. By the order impugned, the authorities of the Shibpur Police Station was directed to deploy appropriate police force on the date and time mentioned in the said order. The bailiff of the Civil Court was also directed to deliver possession, as ordered by the Civil Court on the date and time mentioned in the said order.

3. The 5th respondent along with Tapeshwar Chowdhury and Maheshwar Chowdhury filed a suit being Title Suit No.546 of 2019 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 3rd Court at Howrah. The said suit was decreed ex parte on September 29, 2021. The decree was put into execution giving rise to Title Execution Case No.16 of 2021. The executing court directed the bailiff to deliver possession in favour of the decree holders. However, the bailiff was resisted and upon an application filed by the decree holders under Rule 208 of the CIVIL RULES AND ORDERS , the executing court directed the Nazir to execute the decree through Process Server with the help of police. Since the possession could not be delivered an application for breaking open the padlock was filed by the decree holders. The executing court allowed such application thereby authorising the bailiff to break open the padlock in any of the rooms with police help. The appellants claim to have filed a Miscellaneous Case under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure being Misc. Case No.86 of 2022 praying for setting aside the ex parte decree dated September 29, 2021 passed in Title Suit No.546 of 2019. The prayer for stay of execution at the instance of the appellants herein, however stood rejected by an order dated January 10, 2023.

4. The 5th respondent, pursuant to an order passed by the executing court, deposited the police cost for the purpose of obtaining possession by executing the decree. Alleging inaction on the part of the police, the 5th respondent filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition was allowed by the order impugned.

5. Being aggrieved, the judgement-debtor/resistor in order to resist the execution of the eviction decree has approached this Court by filing this intra-Court mandamus appeal.

6. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate representing the appellants drew the attention of the Court to the plaint of the eviction suit being Title Suit No.65 of 2023 filed by Mina Devi and others against the appellant no.1 herein praying for his eviction from the property mentioned in the schedule to the plaint and contends that the schedule of the property mentioned in Title Suit No.65 of 2023 is identical to the decreetal property involved in Title Suit No.546 of 2019. He submits that the Civil Court has passed an order of status quo in respect of possession in Title Suit No. 65 of 2023. He further submits that since the executing court is in seisin over the matter relating to execution of the decree and there is a dispute with regard to identification of the decreetal property, the learned Single Judge in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to have passed the impugned order.

7. Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate representing the decree holder/5th respondent submits that the decreetal property and the schedule of the property of Title Suit No.65 of 2023 is different. He further submits that the decree holders of Title Suit No.546 of 2019 are not part