JUHRA Vs. LIYAQAT ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the order dated 12.11.1998, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal, provided police help to the decree holder/respondents for execution of warrants of possession against the judgment-debtor/ petitioner. Aggrieved against the said order, the judgment-debtor/petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner confined his argument to the effect that police could not be provided to the decree-holder/ respondents for the execution of warrants of possession by the Executing Court without resorting to the provisions of Order XXI, Rules 97, 98, 100 and 101 of the Code. These Rules read as under : "97. Resistance or obstruction to possession of immovable property-

(3.) I have perused the impugned order dated 12.11.1998 No application under Order 21, Rule 97 or the Code was moved before the Executing Court by the decree-holders complaining resistance or obstruction by the judgment-debtor or in obtaining possession of the property. Therefore, there was no question of determination of such question by the Executing Court under Rule 101 of Order XXI of the Code. No reasons, whatsoever, have -been recorded by the Executing Court for providing police help to the decree-holders in execution of the warrants of possession. The Executing Court could not only provide police help after determining the question under Rule 101 if raised under Rule 97 by making an order under Rule 100, but could order detention of the judgment-debtor in civil prison under Rule 98. In this view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be sustained in this behalf.