The central legal point established in the judgment is that the decree holder should not be required to bear the expenses for police help in enforcing a court decree, in the absence of a specific legal provision enabling such a demand.

1. Heard Sri Rama Kant Tiwari for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 8, 9 and 10.

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by an order dated 7th September, 2013 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 2, Varanasi by which the petitioners, who are decree holder, have been required to deposit an amount of Rs. 85,307/- towards expenses for getting police help to enable execution of a decree obtained by the petitioners.

3. The petitioners had obtained a decree against the private respondents in Original Suit No. 1192 of 1995. The said decree was put to execution by filing Execution Case No. 5 of 2011. In the execution proceeding the court appointed Amin submitted a report that for execution of the decree assistance of police force would be required as the judgment debtors were offering resistance. On the report of the Amin, the court requested district administration to provide police help in response to which the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi raised a demand of Rs. 85,307/-. By the order impugned, the execution court directed the decree holder (the petitioners herein) to deposit the demanded amount within fifteen days.

4. The petitioners claim that there is no legal provision under which such demand could be raised against a decree holder. More over, the State has to provide police support to ensure execution of a decree inasmuch as it is State's duty to maintain Majesty of Court.

5. On 10th December, 2013, when the matter was placed before this Court, following order was passed:-

"The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that for execution of a decree, Execution Case No. 5 of 2011 was filed by the petitioners. As per Amin Report 6 Ga, police assistance was required in which connection, a letter was written to the S.S.R., Varanasi and the S.S.R. Varanasi reported to the Court that for providing security for one day, a sum of Rs. 85,307/- would be required. On the above report, the court below directed the decree holder to deposit the aforesaid amount, within 15 days with the police department.

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that for execution of a decree passed by a Court, it is the responsibility of the Court to ensure proper execution of the decree and the decree-holder is not required to pay for the police support. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there is no provision under the Code of Civil Procedure by which a decree-holder can be directed to deposit the amount for seeking police support for execution of a decree.

Learned Standing Counsel, who has accepted notice on behalf of respondents 8, 9 and 10, may seek instructions so as to assist the Court whether there is any provision of law, which may require a decree-holder to deposit the expenses for seeking police support for execution of a decree passed by the Court.

As prayed, put up on Monday i.e. on 16.12.2013."

6. The matter remained pending since then. Now, the learned standing counsel has been able to obtain instructions. According to his instruction, the amount demanded by the police is justifiable under Sections 13 to 15 of the Police Act, 1861 as also Regulation 198 of the U.P. Police Regulations.

7. A perusal of the provisions of Sections 13 to 15 of the Police Act, 1861 would reveal that they do not apply to the given situation because it is not a case where police help has been asked by any individual for his own protection or security. Here, to maintain the majesty of court and the law, the Court, to ensure that the decree passed by it is executed and unlawful resistance offered by the judgment debtor is overcome, has sought for police help. Therefore, the provisions of sections 13 to 15 of the Police Act, 1861 are not attracted.

8. The other provision which has been relied upon by learned Standing Counsel to justify the demand raised is Regulation 198 of the U.P. Police Regulations.

9. Regulation 198 of the U.P. Police Regulation contemplate