The duty of the State to maintain law and order, the power of the court to seek police assistance for enforcement of its decree, and the mandatory guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in dealing with suits and execution proceedings.

ORDER

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. The Petitioner in this CMP seeks to assail the order dated 11th February, 2019 (Annexure-3) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nayagarh in Execution Case No.2 of 2013 (arising out of T.S. No.67 of 1994), whereby he refused to recall the order dated 11th September, 2017 directing the Petitioner-Decree Holder (D.Hr.) to deposit the cost of deployment of Police force for execution of the decree.

3. It is submitted by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner that vide order dated 11th September, 2017, learned executing court while entertaining an application under Order XXI Rule 35 C.P.C. filed by the Petitioner-DHr. directed that '.Further as there is an apprehension by the DHR that JDR shall cause breach peace at the time of delivery of possession of the suit land, the S.P. Nayagarh be informed to intimate this court the total one day cost of APR force who shall be deputed to be remained present at the spot on the date of delivery of possession of the suit land. After receiving information from S.P. Nayagarh regarding one day cost of APR force, the DHR shall be required to deposit the same to get police help for execution of the decree. Hence, this petition is allowed and issue letter to the S.P. Nayagarh for the above purpose. Put up on 16.10.17 for awaiting intimation S.P. Nayagarh.' The Petitioner being aggrieved filed an application to recall the order dated 11th September, 2017, which was rejected holding that since the order has already been passed upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, the same does not require any re-consideration. He further submits that such a direction is against the rule of law. It is the duty of the State to uphold the majesty of the court. If the order passed by the learned executing court is accepted, then the poor litigants like the Petitioner will not be in a position to enjoy the fruit of the decree, if the Judgment Debtor (J.Dr.) obstructs execution thereof. In support of his case, he relied upon the decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of Gopal and others v- Amar Jeet Singh and others, reported in AIR 2019 ALL 132, wherein it has been held at paragraph-14 as follows:

'14. In the view of the Court, maintenance of law and order in the society is a paramount duty of the State. The court has power to seek police help for enforcement of its decree or order. Therefore, in absence of any specific legal provision enabling the police to raise a Bill on the Court for supply of police help to enforce court's decree or order, requiring the decree holder to sustain the expenses for police help would not be appropriate because if, for helping the Court to enforce its decree or order, money is demanded by the police then a situation may arrive where no poor person would ever be able to have the fruits of a decree or order passed in his favour. Such a situation may result in failure of judicial system.'

He also relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rahul S. Shah-v-Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and others, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 341 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court at pagraph-42 issued guidelines to be mandatorily followed by the Courts in dealing with suits and execution proceedings. It reads as follows:

42. All Courts dealing with suits and execution proceedings shall mandatorily follow the below- mentioned directions:

1. In suits relating to delivery of possession, the court must examine the parties to the suit under Order X in relation to third

2. party interest and further exercise the power under Order XI Rule 14 asking parties to disclose and produce documents, upon oath, which are in possession of the parties including declaration pertaining to third party interest in such properties.

3. In appropriate cases, where the possession is not in dispute and not a question of fact for adjudication before the Court, the Court may appoint Commissioner to assess the accurate description and sta