Execution of Decree--Police Help--A specific application for the purpose was not required to be filed--It is all in the process of execution that effective orders are required to be passed by the court so as to ensure that decree passed in favour of a party is executed.
Specific Performance--Execution of Decree--A decree for specific performance includes a relief of possession even when neither in the judgment nor in the decree a specific direction to put the decree holder in possession is given.

Mr. Rajesh Bindal, J.: - The judgment-debtor is before this court impugning the order dated 30.4.2012, passed by the learned court below, whereby a direction was issued for grant of police help in execution of a decree of specific performance of agreement to sell. Police help was provided for delivery of possession.

2. Brief facts are that the petitioner entered into an agreement to sell pertaining to the suit property with the respondent on 27.1.1998. The sale deed having not been registered within the time prescribed, the suit was filed for specific performance of agreement to sell. The same was decreed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Abohar on 9.6.2007. The judgment and decree of the trial court attained finality as no appeal was filed against the same. The sale deed having not been registered, the respondent-decree holder filed execution on 24.10.2007. In the aforesaid execution, the decree holder filed application on 20.4.2012 seeking restrain against the petitioner-judgment debtor from harvesting the wheat crop standing on the suit land as he had already deposited compensation for the standing crop in the court. While dismissing the application and considering the statement made by power of attorney holder of the decree holder and the concerned Kanungo, the learned court below directed for providing police help for execution of the warrant of possession of the property in dispute. The aforesaid order is impugned before this court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while dismissing the application filed by the decree-holder for restraining the petitioner-judgment debtor from harvesting the wheat crop, the learned court below could not have granted police help to the decree holder for execution of warrant of possession as no such prayer was made by the decree holder before the court below. If the respondent-decree holder was aggrieved against the rejection of his application for restraining the petitioner from harvesting the crop, he could have impugned the order before this court. He further submitted that the petitioner had filed objections on 30.4.2012 as have even been noticed in the impugned order. When the objections filed by the petitioner were still pending, police help could not have been provided for execution of warrant of possession.

4. Learned counsel further submitted that in fact decree has already been executed as the sale deed was registered in favour of the respondent- decree holder on 2.9.2011, however, he was not aware of the reason for delay in execution of the sale deed. He further submitted that objections had been filed to the effect that in the decree passed in favour of the respondent, relief of possession had not been granted as it was simpliciter for specific performance of agreement to sell. The judgment and decree of the court below having already been satisfied with the execution of the sale deed, no further proceedings in the execution could continue.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper book.

6. As has already been noticed above, the suit filed by the respondent for specific performance of agreement to sell was decreed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Abohar on 9.6.2007. The respondent-plaintiff was directed to deposit the remaining sale consideration and get the sale deed registered. In case of failure of the petitioner-defendant to get the sale deed executed, the respondent-plaintiff was at liberty to get the same executed through court. The petitioner having not executed the sale deed, execution was filed by the respondent on 24.10.2007. Though there is nothing on record to show as to why the execution remained pending for a period of about four years as the sale deed is stated to have been registered on 2.9.2011, but still the fact is that with delay, only the petitioner was the beneficiary.

7. A perusal of the zimni orders produced on record by the petitioner in the petition shows that on 20.1.2012, when the petitioner