ALTAR DEVI Vs. ANANDI YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application by the decree -holder of Title Execution Case No. 6/78 of the court of the 2nd Additional Sub -ordinate Judge, Munger, is directed against the order dated 19 -S -84.

(2.) Admittedly the decree was passed in favour of the petitioner some time in the year 1971. It was put into execution. The Nazir of the court was deputed to have the decree executed and delivery of possession effected. He met with serious resistance on the part of the judgment -debtors. A report to that effect was submitted by him to the executing court. He further reported that the execution of the delivery of possession could not be executed without the help of police armed guard. The petitioner thereupon filed an application praying to the court below that the Nazir of the court may go to the spot for execution of the decree with the help of the police or armed constables. This prayer of the petitioner has been rejected by the executing court on the ground that the court was not aware of any provision in the Code of Civil Procedure which had vested it was any authority to order for the deputation of armed police for the help of Nazir for the execution of the decree. The impugned order is obviously in ignorance of the jurisdiction of the court in this regard. The Civil Court Rules of the High Court of Judicature Patna (Civil) prescribe Rule 116 that "execution cases should receive as much attention as original suits and appeals. The Presiding Officer should see that the process of the court are not abused. All cases of fraud, negligence, suppression of processes and resistance to execution should be carefully scrutinized by him with a view to his taking such steps as may be necessary to prevent their recurrence. (Underlining is mine).

(3.) It is curious indeed that the fruit of a decree obtained by a decree -holder be made fruitless on account of the excess on the part of the judgment -debtor and the court should be a mute spectator to the decree merely remaining a scrap of paper. Even without the rule, above mentioned, it does not stand to reason as to how the court below is oblivious of its powers to see that the decree is duly executed by all possible means. Therefore, the court below has refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law. The impugned order is, accordingly, set aside and it is directed that the Nazir would go for the execution of the decree for delivery of possession with the help of police armed guard.