Sarita Rani 2025.01.07 15:54 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CR No.5510 of 2024 2025:PHHC:000305 the Appellate Court on 09.08.1999. No further appeal was filed and thus, the judgment dated 12.08.1994 aained finality. 3.1 Pe$$oner being the decree holder then filed execu$on No.2/ 14T/11.02.2000 in 2000. It is contended that ever since then, he is unable to take possession of the suit property pursuant to the judgment and decree dated 12.08.1994 passed in his favour despite issuance of warrants of possession several $mes. Earlier the warrants could not be executed for want of police help. Later on, it was reported by the Revenue Officials that Jhuggis and cemented houses had been constructed; and electric meters & hand pumps had been installed in the suit property and as such, they showed their inability to remove the said construc$ons and sought appropriate direc$ons for the removal. Correspondence was done with the District Magistrate to provide necessary police help. It is the allega$on of the pe$$oner that because of the non-serious conduct of the administra$ve authori$es, the warrants of possession could not be executed despite interven$on of the Hon’ble Administra$ve Judge of this Court. 3.2 Pe$$oner also contends that an applica$on under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was filed by some of the alleged representa$ves of the encroachers/ respondents/ defendants/ judgment debtors for se;ng the decree dated 12.08.1994. Another applica$on was filed under Order XXI Rule 66 CPC for staying the execu$on. Both these applica$ons were dismissed way back on 21.08.2012 and 13.01.2014 respec$vely. Therea>er, various $mes warrants of possession were issued, but the same remained unexecuted and the Execu$ng Court kept on commen$ng upon the conduct of the administra$on and the police authority and their inability to execute the warrants. The pe$$oner has specifically referred about an order dated 23.07.2010 passed by the Execu$ng Court, which reads as under:- “ The maer involved the act of par$cipa$on of the revenue authori$es, police authori$es, PWD authori$es etc. Despite the interven$on of Hon’ble Administra$ve Judge, the Court has not been able to sa$sfy the decree in favour of the decree holder for the reasons. It is not the court who can actually go to the spot and deliver the vacant possession of the suit land to Sarita Rani 2025.01.07 15:54 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CR No.5510 of 2024 2025:PHHC:000305 the decree holder. The revenue authori$es, police authori$es and PWD authori$es have to ac$vely assist the court each other in delivering vacant possession of the suit land to the decree holder. Ul$mately when the maer reached to the administra$ve Judge, interven$on of the learned District & Sessions Judge was sought and police help was awarded to the DH. Local police remained present at the spot but they were not able to execute the warrants as the judgment debtors raised a protest. The judgment debtors threatened to take the law into their own hand commi;ng riots etc. As a result of which warrants of possession could not be executed. Ul$mately two of the judgment debtors i.e. Panna Ram son of Bali, and Guddo wife of Jagga came to the spot.” 3.3 The pe$$oner has further given details that some of defendants/JDs/their alleged respec$ve representa$ves filed CWP No.12710 of 2014 $tled as “Niranjan and others v. The State of Punjab”, seeking direc$on from this High Court against State of Punjab for their rehabilita$on and also sought stay against their dispossession. The true facts were concealed in that pe$$on and an interim order was obtained and so, the execu$on was put to break. Pe$$oner was constrained to file CM Nos.12500 to 12502 of 2014 for impleading him as a party. This Court categorically held that any stay order granted by this Court would not operate against the interest of the present pe$$oner. 3.4 It is alleged by the pe$$oner that the District Authori$es had been hand in glove with the encroachers/JDs and ul$mately, the writ pe$$on was dismissed with liberty to the said persons to make a representa$on to the District Collector, Fatehgarh Sahib, as state counsel submied that representa$on, if filed, will be considered. It is alleged that State of Punjab is ac$ng in connivance with the said persons/encroachers. 3.5 Later on, another CWP No.18348 of 2018, $tled as “Niranjan and others v. State of Punjab” was filed seeking relief of mandamus against the State of Punjab and other respondents not to displace the respondents/JDs and their families from the colonies situated in the suit property and other related direc$ons were sought. In the said writ pe$$on also, those persons Sarita Rani 2025.01.07 15:54 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CR No.5510 of 2024 2025:PHHC:000305 obtained interim order on 26.07.2018 against their dispossession, without impleading the pe$$oner as a party, which brought the execu$on to stands$ll. Pe$$oner filed CM No.805-CWP of 2020 and then this Court was pleased to vacate the interim order obtained by the encroachers. Ul$mately, said writ pe$$on was dismissed for want of prosecu$on vide order dated 09.01.2024 (Annexure P-19). 3.6 The respondents/JDs/their successors have also filed a suit for permanent injunc$on against the pe$$oner in the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Fatehgarh Sahib seeking stay. That suit is pending. 3.7 It is contended by learned counsel for the pe$$oner that the JDs/ encroachers by filing writ pe$$on or suit are not allowing the execu$on of the decree in connivance of the administra$on. Pe$$oner is the owner of the property and is seeking to evict the encroachers/respondents/defendants on the basis of judgment and decree passed in his favour. 3.8 It is further submied that the pe$$oner is a senior ci$zen of 80 years of age and he is facing a lot of old aged diseases including Asthma, joint pains etc. He is figh$ng the bale for the last 30 years seeking possession of his property from the encroachers/their representa$ves, who are in illegal possession thereof by raising small brick walls and they have also been able to get electricity and water connec$ons therein. 3.9 It is further the conten$on of learned counsel for the pe$$oner that on 27.02.2024, the execu$on was disposed of, having being sa$sfied with the report that possession has been delivered. The pe$$oner immediately complained to the Court that possession was not delivered to him and that he was made to sign on certain papers by Kanungo present at the spot by saying that the same was required for showing the presence of the decree holder. It was further brought to the no$ce of the Execu$ng court that possession was not delivered to him and none of the JDs/their representa$ves or their agents or any other persons/encroachers had been evicted in execu$on of the decree and even their belongings were not taken out from the constructed por$on. No JCB machine was brought on the spot Sarita Rani 2025.01.07 15:54 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CR No.5510 of 2024 2025:PHHC:000305 despite assurance given by the police officials/Kanungo. It was also brought to the knowledge to the Court that signatures of the pe$$oner were obtained on 2-3 papers and that he never knew about the consequences of these signatures. At 2 p.m. on that day, it was informed to the pe$$oner that they had executed the order of the Court, which was never informed to the pe$$oner while ge;ng his signatures by the Kanungo. 3.10 It is alleged by the pe$$oner that his signatures were obtained on blank papers and all this has been done by the officials just to save their skin and to avoid any legal ac$on by the court against them. Execu$ng Court was also apprised of the fact that respondents/JDs/their representa$ves and their agents were s$ll si;ng in the suit property, as they were in possession before the start of the fake proceedings and the paper transac$on has been done by the officials and thus, a fraud has been played with the pe$$oner and also with the Court. The Execu$ng Court was requested to appoint two respectable officials of the Court or to appoint Local Commissioners to verify the facts stated. Previous observa$ons made by the Execu$ng Court against the Revenue Officials and other officials of the administra$on were also brought to the no$ce of the Court. 3.11 Despite all the above allega$ons supported by affidavit of the pe$$oner, the Execu$ng Court by way of the impugned order dismissed his applica$on without considering the aforesaid facts. The Execu$ng Court assumed that since pe$$oner was an educated person, therefore, he could not be made to sign on the blank papers. The Court also assumed the fake proceedings of the Revenue Officials as correct and accepted their report as gospel truth. By making such observa$ons, the Execu$ng Court failed to take into account the real and actual posi$on and the fact that even the police officials and other officials of the administra$on were showing their helplessness in delivering the possession to the pe$$oner from the last more than 20 years. Learned Execu$ng Court has also wrongly observed that in case, pe$$oner has been dispossessed later on, then he should avail his remedy as per law and that possession cannot be granted again in the execu$on. The said observa$ons are alleged to be wrong, illegal and Sarita Rani 2025.01.07 15:54 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CR No.5510 of 2024 2025:PHHC:000305 perverse. The Execu$ng Court failed to sa$sfy itself that pe$$oner is a senior ci$zen of 80 years and has been figh$ng the legal bale for the last 30 years to get back his property from the trespassers. 3.12 Pe$$oner had earlier filed CR No.4999 of 2024 assailing the impugned order (Annexure P-1). However, as it was brought to the no$ce of this Court that it is the administra$on, who was claiming to have delivered the possession, therefore, request was made to implead officials of the administra$on as par$es. That pe$$on was then dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file the fresh pe$$on and consequent thereto, the present pe$$on has been filed with the prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 12.04.2024 (Annexure P-1). Pe$$oner seeks direc$on to be issued to respondent Nos.1 to 4 to put the pe$$oner/decree holder in actual physical possession of the property in dispute. 4. Vide order dated 23.09.2024, this Court directed the Deputy Commissioner, Fatehgarh Sahib to file reply by way of his affidavit a>er verifying the facts regarding the delivery of possession of the property as men$oned in the decree, in favour of the pe$$oner. 5. Short reply by way of affidavit of Sona Thind, Deputy Commissioner, Fatehgarh Sahib – respondent No.2 on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 has since been received, asser$ng that possession has been duly delivered to the pe$$oner – decree holder, who had signed the necessary papers in this regard. As per the affidavit of the Deputy Commissioner, Fatehgarh Sahib, pursuant to the warrants of possession issued by the Execu$ng Court with direc$on to provide necessary police help, the appropriate police force was arranged and the process for delivery of possession was executed on 27.02.2024 in the presence of heavy police force and in the presence of various officials of the District Administra$on, the pe$$oner himself and the other respectable of the area. Photographer and videographer were also called at the spot to record the en$re process. Affidavit further states that the statement of the pe$$oner was recorded at the $me of delivery of possession to the pe$$oner, who willingly put his Sarita Rani 2025.01.07 15:54 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CR No.5510 of 2024 2025:PHHC:000305 signatures. An announcement was also made on the loudspeaker to the gathered crowd and general public was made aware of the orders of the Court. The measurement of the Khasra No.26/10 (3 K 18M) was done through DGPS system, which was arranged by Tehsil Authori$es. A>er installing of the Burjis (concrete pillars), the possession of the property in ques$on was handed over to pe$$oner – Jagjit Singh alongwith construc$on, electric connec$ons and water pumps already exis$ng on the said land as directed by the Execu$ng Court. Revenue Clerk was directed to make an entry in the Jamabandi. The affidavit is supported by the statement of the pe$$oner (copy Annexure R2/T) and the report of the execu$on of warrants of possession singed by the Kanungo, Sirhind as Annexure R3/T. 6. However, the pe$$oner has filed his re-joinder/counter reply, refu$ng the contents of the affidavit of the respondents. 7. This Court has considered submissions of both the sides and has appraised the record carefully. 8. It is contended on behalf of the respondents/Administra$on that the present pe$$on has been filed on false grounds as possession has already been delivered to the pe$$oner. The compliance report was made to the Execu$ng Court. The pe$$oner moved an applica$on before the Execu$ng Court raising some false and frivolous allega$ons against the compliance report, which was dismissed by the Execu$ng Court by way of the impugned order dated 12.04.2024 (Annexure P-1). As per the affidavit, all the direc$ons made by the Execu$ng Court were duly complied with in handing over the possession to the pe$$oner alongwith the construc$on made thereon, besides electric connec$ons and water pumps etc. Pe$$oner being an educated person and who has been adjudica$ng the execu$on since 2000 was well aware of the process of the law and as such, the allega$ons made by him, are absolutely false. Alongwith this affidavit, respondents have also aached the statement of the pe$$oner, besides the report of the execu$on of warrants besides photographs and the pen drive. Sarita Rani 2025.01.07 15:54 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CR No.5510 of 2024 2025:PHHC:000305 9. Learned State counsel by drawing aen$on of this Court to various photographs has tried to convince this Court that cemented pillars were fixed for demarca$ng the property and pe$$oner himself is visible in those photographs to show delivery of possession to him and that he had signed the report in this regard. Learned State counsel has also drawn aen$on towards the impugned order passed by the Execu$ng Court, in which it has been observed that in case a>er delivery of possession to the pe$$oner-decree holder, the pe$$oner has been subsequently dispossessed, he can avail his remedy under law and possession cannot be granted again to him for the second $me under this execu$on. 10. Learned counsel for the pe$$oner has refuted all the allega$ons and submied that signatures of the pe$$oner were obtained on the pretext that his presence was required to show the delivery of possession and in fact, the actual physical possession was never delivered to him. Learned counsel for the pe$$oner has par$cularly contended that so many people/JDs/ their representa$ves/agents are encroaching upon the land and that there is nothing in the report of the Bailiff or in the affidavit of the respondents to show that any of those encroachers were removed from the property. So much so, no belongings of the private respondents/JDs/encroachers were taken out. Those encroachers alongwith their families or their agents are s$ll possessing the property, as was the posi$on before the proceedings. 11. Real problem for a decree-holder starts a>er ge;ng the decree in his favour because of arduous route of legal proceedings and hurdles created by the Judgment -debtor and others in execu$on of the decree. Regarding the problems faced by a decree holder in ge;ng the actual fruits of the decree passed in his favour, it has been commented by Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Shri Nath v. Rajesh” AIR 1998 SC 1827 as under: - “The seekers of jus$ce many a $me has to take a loan circuitous routes, both on account of hierarchy of Courts and the procedural law. Such persons are and can be dragged $ll the last ladder of the said hierarchy for receiving jus$ce but even here he only breaths earness of receiving the fruits of that jus$ce for which he has been aspiring to receive. To reach this stage is in Sarita Rani 2025.01.07 15:54 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CR No.5510 of 2024 2025:PHHC:000305 itself an achievement and sa$sfac$on as the, by then has passed through a long arduous journey of the procedural law with many hurdles replica of mountain aain with ridges and furrows. When he is ready to take the bite of that fruit, he has to pass through the same terrain of the procedural law in the execu$on proceedings the morose is writ large on his face. What looked inevitable to him to receive it at his hands distance is deluded back into the horizon. The crea$on of hierarchy of Courts was for a reasonable objec$ve for conferring greater sa$sfac$on to the par$es that errors, if any, by any of the lower Courts under the scru$ny of a higher Court be rec$fied and long procedural laws also with good inten$on to exclude and filter out all unwanted who may be the cause of obstruc$on to such seekers in his journey to jus$ce. But this obviously is one of the causes of delay in jus$ce. Of course, under this paern the party wrongfully gaining within permissible limits also stretches and li$ga$on an much as possible.” 12. Recently, in M/s AI-Can Export Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pres%ge H.M. Polycontainers Ltd. & Ors. 2024(4) RCR (Civil) 155, it has been observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court as under: “37. Order XXI of the CPC is exhaus$ve and in the nature of a complete code as to how the execu$on proceedings should take place. This is the second stage a>er the success of the party in the civil proceedings. This Court in many of its decisions has said that this is the second stage a>er the success of the party in the civil proceedings. It is o>en said in our country that another legal bale, more prolonged, starts in execu$on proceedings defea$ng the right of the party which has succeeded in establishing its claim in civil proceedings.” 13. Present case is the perfect example, where the pe$$oner despite ge;ng decree of possession of his own property in his favour way back in 1994, is unable to enjoy the fruits of the decree. 14. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in present case, Order XXI Rule 35 CPC and Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure are relevant, which reads as under:- Sarita Rani 2025.01.07 15:54 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CR No.5510 of 2024 2025:PHHC:000305 “35. Decree for immovable property.—(1) Where a decree is for the delivery of any immovable property, possession thereof shall be delivered to the party to whom it has been adjudged, or to such person as he may appoint to receive delivery on his behalf, and, if necessary, by removing any person bound by the decree who refuses to vacate the property. (2) Where a decree is for the joint possession of immovable property, such possession shall be delivered by affixing a copy of the warrant in some conspicuous place on the property and proclaiming by beat of drum, or other customary mode, at some convenient place, the substance of the decree. (3) Where possession of any building on enclosure is to be delivered and the person in possession, being bound by the decree, does not afford free access, the Court, through its officers, may, a>er giving reasonable warning and facility to any woman not appearing in public according to the customs of the country to withdraw, remove or open any lock or bolt or break open any door or do any other act necessary for pu;ng the decree-holder in possession. 97. Resistance or obstruc(on to possession of immovable property.—(1) Where the holder of a decree for the possession of immovable property or the purchaser of any such property sold in execu$on of a decree is resisted or obstructed by any person in obtaining possession of the property, he may make an applica$on to the Court complaining of such resistance or obstruc$on. (2) Where any applica$on is made under sub-rule (1), the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the applica$on in accordance with the provisions herein contained.” 15. Where a decree is for the delivery of any immovable property, the possession thereof as contemplated by Rule 35 is khas or actual possession, and not the paper or symbolic possession. Decree-holder is en$tled to and the judgment -debtor is obliged & constrained to deliver the possession. It is for the execu$ng court to ensure that decree-holder is delivered actual possession by removing any person bound by the decree, Sarita Rani 2025.01.07 15:54 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CR No.5510 of 2024 2025:PHHC:000305 who refuses to vacate the property. Rule 97 en$tles the decree-holder to approach the Execu$ng Court, when obstruc$on is caused by any person in obtaining possession. 16. In view of the aforesaid legal posi$on, the ques$on is as to whether the pe$$oner/decree holder has been delivered the actual physical possession of the property in dispute by removing the persons bound by the decree/encroachers. The expression ‘any person’ as used in Sec$on 97 CPC is quite wide to include even any stranger resis$ng the delivery of possession and such a person, who is not even bound by the decree. 17. In the present case, it no doubt true that the report of the Bailiff (Annexure R3/T) to be read with the statement of the pe$$oner (Annexure R2/T) made before the Execu$ng Authori$es would indicate as if the possession is delivered to the pe$$oner, but this Court observes that the pe$$oner, who is 80 years old person and figh$ng this legal bale for the last 34 years to get possession of his property, is not mad that he will approach the Court without any reason. Pe$$oner is figh$ng this long bale for ge;ng the actual possession of the suit property so as to reap the fruits of the decree passed in his favour way back in 1994. The execu$on itself was filed in 2000 and now we are in the year 2025, but s$ll he has not been able to get the actual possession of the property in dispute. 18. As the report of the Bailiff to be read with the affidavit filed by the respondents in the light of the affidavit of the pe$$oner would indicate that only the paper formali$es have been completed in the name of delivery of actual possession to the pe$$oner. Simply because the cement pillars were affixed at the $me of execu$on of the warrants of possession, on which the pe$$oner’s presence is shown, does not mean that actual possession was delivered to him. Neither the report of the Bailiff nor the affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner indicate that JDs/their representa$ves/the encroachers possessing the suit property have been dispossessed or removed from the land in dispute. There is nothing in the report to indicate that the belongings of the encroachers have been removed from the property in Sarita Rani 2025.01.07 15:54 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CR No.5510 of 2024 2025:PHHC:000305 dispute. In these facts and circumstances, it cannot be said at all that actual physical possession has been delivered to the pe$$oner. 19. The observa$on made by the Execu$ng Court to the effect that in case, pe$$oner has been dispossessed subsequent to the delivery of possession, he can avail alterna$ve remedy available to him and the fresh applica$on moved by him is not maintainable, is without any merit. In interpre$ng any procedural law, where more than one interpreta$on is possible, the one which curtails the procedure without eluding the jus$ce is to be adopted. The procedural law is always subservient to and is in aid to jus$ce. Any interpreta$on, which eludes or frustrate the recipient of jus$ce is not to be followed as has been observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sher Nath v. Rajesh (supra). In the present case, by interpre$ng the procedural law to the effect that once the possessions has been delivered, second applica$on is not maintainable, the execu$ng court has certainly gone in error. 20. Similar was the posi$on faced by Orissa High Court in case of “Bankaram Kumbhar v. Budel Murmu”, 2017 AIR CC 1628: 2017 (i) Ori. Law Rev.779, wherein it was observed and held as under: “4. The points which arise for considera$on now are whether the execu$ng court has the jurisdic$on in the said execu$on case to direct delivery of pos- session afresh and if so whether in the facts and circumstances as narrated by the pe$$oners in their pe$$on seeking issuance of delivery of possession, the execu$ng court has failed to exercise the jurisdic$on vested on it under law and has thus exercised the jurisdic$on in the maer with material illeg- ality or irregularity. 5. Code of Civil procedure contains various provisions as to when actual, joint or symbolical possession can be given. Possession referred to in sub- rule 1 and 2 of rule 35 order 21 is actual possession. If the immovable prop- erty of which the possession is directed to be delivered to the decree holder is in possession of the judgment debtor, then actual possession is to be de- livered to the decree holder; under sub-rule-1 of rule 35 of order -21. By is- Sarita Rani 2025.01.07 15:54 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CR No.5510 of 2024 2025:PHHC:000305 suance of writ of delivery of possession, the Court certainly directs that the decree-holder must be put in possession. It is the seled posi$on of law that the decree has to be executed in full and the court must be sa$sfied that there has been actual physical delivery of possession. Once it is found that no actual possession has been given in ac- cordance with the provisions of order 21 rule 35 of the Code, there cannot be any finality to the execu$on proceeding. It is only when the property is delivered to a decree holder in execu$on of the decree for possession, the decree stands sa$sfied in that regard. It is open to the decree holder to maintain an applica$on for possession when he alleges that effec$ve posses- sion as per the decree was not given to him by the officer who was in-charge of the writ of delivery of possession and had been so directed. 6. In the present case, the complaint of the pe$$oners is that although bailiff was directed to give delivery possession of the suit property with police help in view of the last $me experience, second $me also, he went to the spot without any police assistance and then asked the opposite par$es (judgment debtors) to remove some goods and therea>er when they removed some, the bailiff obtaining the signatures of the Decree- Holders on the warrant and without giving the actual delivery of possession of the suit property to the pe$$oners (Decree- Holders) submied a report as regards the same. In essence, the complaint is that there has been no actual or physical delivery of possession and thus there has not been the effec$ve execu$on. The deliv- ery of possession in other wards is said to be an eye wash without delivery of the fruit of the decree to the holders. 7. It is the seled law that notwithstanding the report of the bailiff, an ob- jec$on is permissible to be raised either by the decree holder or the judg- ment debtor that the possession of the immovable property was not actu- ally delivered and in the event, the court so finds that there is no legal, and effec$ve delivery of possession on that occasion, it has the jurisdic$on to is- sue writ of delivery of possession afresh. In view of the immediate complaint made by the pe$$oners (decree-holders), in this case even accep$ng the view of the execu$ng court at best it can be said to be a case of symbolical delivery of possession which was not the direc$on to the bailiff and thus it is Sarita Rani 2025.01.07 15:54 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CR No.5510 of 2024 2025:PHHC:000305 in breach of the order in the writ. Moreso, when that bailiff had sought for police assistance and therefore it had been so ordered, the bailiff has not cared to take that which itself raises eye brows at the very outset. Its only when the decree-holder deliberately accepts symbolical possession and does not repudiate, then only he is not en$tled to come forward later with a second execu$on applica$on or for issuance of writ of delivery of possession again. But this does not appear to be the case here. 8. The law is well-seled that when such prayer for reissuance of writ of de- livery of possession comes for considera$on, it is for the court to arrive at the sa$sfac$on about its direc$ons being complied with or not. The execut- ing court is not to merely rely upon the report for that and instead to con- sider all other facts and circumstances and ul$mately take a view in the cu- mula$ve. In that way the duty of the execu$ng court is of utmost import- ance that it provides the real message to all as regards the decree of the court how has firmly stood in the field and that it is not a paper decree and most importantly to see that the decree provides the fruits to its holders by sternly dealing with any illegal, diabolical or circuitous aempts to thwart its execu$on or subvert its course as it causes threat to the administra$on of jus$ce and thereby adversely impacts the authority of the court tending to reduce the legal process to a mockery. 9. In this case, the complaint has been made by the pe$$oners (decree holders) even before confirma$on of the delivery of possession alleging that there has been no actual delivery of possession as per the writ issued to the bailiff of the court. Furthermore, the court having ordered for assistance of police in the maer, accep$ng the earlier version during when there had been the failure, the execu$ng court has not been placed itself in a posi$on to verify this aspect from them as how as per the report even without any such external assistance, the bailiff completed the exercise so smoothly as if he had the earlier informa$on from confiden$al sources that this $me the opposite par$es would be fully coopera$ng in the maer as law abiding per- son and that they so scrupulously abided. In my considered view, the facts and circumstances being viewed cumula$vely go to clearly expose that the execu$on of writ of delivery of possession in the case in hand is an eye wash Sarita Rani 2025.01.07 15:54 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CR No.5510 of 2024 2025:PHHC:000305 adopted as a way to render the en$re legal process fu$le and the execu$ng court has failed in its duty. 10. The execu$ng court in the instant case ought not to have rejected the prayer holding the execu$on of the decree to be legal and effec$ve merely giving the emphasis upon the report of the bailiff which is called in ques$on by the pe$$oners (decree holders). It has to be kept in view that the decree- holder having once got the delivery of possession of property by way of exe- cu$on of a decree, does not ordinarily in any way gain by again ge;ng the writ issued shortly therea>er in the same fact situa$on. So, in order to re- fuse the prayer, the execu$ng court must arrive at a sa$sfac$on that said move of the decree holder is mischievous, inten$onal in order to serve any other illegal goal beyond the purview of the decree. At the same $me, the execu$ng court is to see that the decree which has been so passed a>er long legal bale is just shown to have been executed instead of giving the deliv- ery of the fruit of it to the decree-holder and that is to foil the en$re exer- cise. This has not been so found by the execu$ng court in this case. There- fore, this court finds that flagrant viola$on of jus$ce has taken place by such order in the execu$on case. The order in ques$on thus is liable to be quashed in exercise of power under Ar$cle-227 of the Cons$tu$on. 11. The applica$on is accordingly allowed. The order in ques$on is hereby quashed and the execu$ng court is directed to issue the writ of delivery of possession of the decretal immovable property to the pe$$oners afresh with police assistance so as to see that there is legal and effec$ve execu$on of the decree in accordance with law within two months from the date of communica$on of the order or produc$on of its cer$fied copy whichever is earlier and report compliance to this Court within a week therea>er.” 21. In the present case also, similar is the posi$on. Even if for the sake of arguments, it is assumed that possession was delivered to the pe$$oner as is contended by the respondents and as per the report of the Bailiff, but once it is complained by the pe$$oner immediately that actual physical possession was not delivered to him or that he has been dispossessed subsequently, he has certainly the locus standi to move the Sarita Rani 2025.01.07 15:54 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CR No.5510 of 2024 2025:PHHC:000305 fresh applica$on before the Execu$ng Court for actual delivery of possession to him and for execu$on of the decree passed in his favour in 1994. 22. In view of the en$re discussion as above, the impugned order dated 12.04.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Execu$ng Court is hereby set aside. The Execu$ng Court is hereby directed to issue fresh warrant for delivery of possession of the decretal immovable property in favour of the pe$$oner with police assistance and to ensure that there is effec$ve execu$on of the decree in accordance with law within a period of 02 months from the date of communica$on of this order or the produc$on of the cer$fied copy this order before the Execu$ng Court. 23. In order to avoid any controversy in future, it is also directed that the police assistance be provided to the pe$$oner/DH even to construct a boundary wall around his decretal property, so that actual possession is delivered to him. All the encroachers/JDs/their representa$ves/agents shall be removed from the suit property and the actual physical vacant possession of the property in dispute shall be delivered to the pe$$oner. The Execu$ng Court, at the cost of the pe$$oner, shall also consider to appoint one or two Senior Advocates of Court to act as Local Commissioners to report the court about compliance of the decree. The Court will sa$sfy itself about the actual delivery of the possession to the pe$$oner before consigning the execu$on as sa$sfied. Ordered accordingly. January 07, 2025 Sarita (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes Whether reportable? Yes Sarita Rani 2025.01.07 15:54 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order