JUDGMENT

R.S. Pathak, J. - This is a judgment-debtor's appeal directed against an order dated June 1, 1968 made by the learned First Additional Civil Judge, Agra issuing a fresh writ of possession to the respondent decree-holders for execution by a Commissioner appointed for that purpose.

2. The litigation involving the property in dispute dates back to 1919. There were a number of suits, of which the latest is suit No. 30 of 1945. The suit was filed by the decree-holder respondents for partition of their 314th share in certain properties and for possession of their separated share. On February 21, 1952 a preliminary decree for partition of the 314th share and for possession thereof was made under Order 20, Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was followed by a final decree on August 24, 1966. On may 15, 1967 the decree-holders filed an application for execution of the decree. Meanwhile, the judgment-debtors preferred an appeal in this Court against the final decree and made an application on May 18, 1967 for stay. of execution. The stay application was dismissed on the same day by B. Dayal, J. On the next day, they presented another stay application, this time before Seth, J., and obtained an ex parte stay of execution in respect of one of the properties, namely, a Haveli in which the present judgment-debtor appellant, Ragho Prasad, is admittedly resident. The stay application was finally heard in the presence of the parties on October 5, 1967 when certain conditions were imposed for the Continuance of the stay during the pendency of the appeal. Those conditions were not fulfilled by the judgment-debtors and accordingly on December 5, 1967 the stay order lapsed. On October 17, 1967 the judgment-debtors filed an objection under Section 47 of the Code. Another objection under section was filed by them on November 4, 1-967. On December 22, 1967 both objections were dismissed. Then on January 5, 1968 the judgment-debtors filed an execution first appeal, which was dismissed on the same day. A stay application filed with it was also rejected. Thereafter, on January 8, 1968, the judgment-debtors filed another objection under Section 47 and on the next day filed an application for stay of execution. The objection was registered as Misc. case No: 1 of 1968, but the stay application was rejected. An application for amendment of the objection was made on January 27, 1968, and we are informed that the objection dated January 8, 1968 and the amendment application filed thereafter have since been rejected by the executing court.

3. On the dismissal of the first two objections under Section 47 on December 22, 1967 the executing court appointed a Commissioner for effecting delivery of possession. The Commissioner, accompanied by Pratap Narain Agarwal, one of the decree-holder respondents before us, proceeded to execute the commission for delivery of possession of the Haveli. On reaching the premises he was met by Shanket Prasad, son of the said Ragho Prasad, who handed him an application stating that he with his mother, brothers and sisters were living in the Haveli in their own right and were not liable to ejectment. The Commissioner, however, proceeded to execute his commission, but resistance was offered by Shanker Prasad who obstructed the Commissioner in his task of effecting delivery. The Commissioner decided to postpone the execution of the commission to a future date after obtaining the help of the police, and he submitted a report accordingly to the executing court on January 9, 1968 and prayed for suitable orders from the court. On the same date an application was made by the decree holder respondents requesting the executing court for adequate police aid to the Commissioner to enable him to execute the commission. The latter application was rejected by the court on the same date on the ground that the General Rules (Civil) did not provide for giving police aid in such a matter. Then on January 27, 1968 an application was made