25.08.2026 Ct. No. 655 S.L. No.87 AMR CO 4585 of 2025 Sk. Jakir Hossain -vs- Rajendra Prasad Chowdhuri Mr. Amit Baran Dash Ms. Ankana Sarkar Ms. Sharmi Das …for the Defendant/Judgment Debtor/Petitioner 1. Learned Advocate representing the Defendant/Judgment Debtor/Petitioner is present. 2. The instant civil revisional application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the impugned order dated 23.09.2025 passed by the learned Executing Court in connection with Execution Case No. 03 of 2020. 3. It appears from the materials on record that the suit instituted by the plaintiff/opposite party herein was decreed in his favour in Suit No. 294 of 2015. Pursuant to the said judgment and decree, the decree-holder put the decree into execution by initiating Execution Case No. 03 of 2020. In the course of execution, the learned Seal Bailiff proceeded to the decretal property for the purpose of delivering possession to the decree-holder. However, for reasons recorded in the execution proceedings, the Seal Bailiff could not effect delivery of possession of the decretal property in favour of the decree-holder. 4. In the meantime, the present petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the 2 learned Trial Court, preferred an appeal before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court, Contai, which was registered as Title Appeal No. 04 of 2022. It is submitted that the said appeal is pending consideration before the learned First Appellate Court. 5. It further appears that, during the pendency of the execution proceeding, the decree-holder filed an application before the learned Executing Court under Rule 208 of the Civil Rules and Orders, praying, inter alia, for police assistance/protection at the time of execution of the decree. The learned Executing Court, upon consideration of the said prayer, allowed the application and directed that necessary police assistance be provided for facilitating execution of the decree. The said order dated 23.09.2025 is under challenge in the present revisional application. 6. At the time of hearing, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that an application under Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking stay of further proceedings in Execution Case No. 03 of 2020, had already been filed before the learned First Appellate Court along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. It is contended that the prayer for stay of execution has not yet been considered by the learned First Appellate Court, as the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act itself had not been disposed of till the relevant date. 3 7. This Court has considered the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner and has carefully perused the impugned order as well as the materials placed before it. 8. It is well settled that the mere pendency of an appeal against a decree does not, by itself, operate as an automatic stay of the execution of such decree. The decree-holder is ordinarily entitled to seek execution unless the operation or execution of the decree is stayed by a competent Court. The question as to whether execution should be stayed during the pendency of the appeal is primarily within the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court under Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, merely because an application seeking stay has been filed before the learned First Appellate Court, particularly when the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is yet to be disposed of, the Executing Court cannot be said to have acted without jurisdiction in considering a prayer made by the decree- holder for police assistance for effective implementation of the decree. 9. The prayer for police assistance, in the facts of the present case, does not amount to alteration or modification of the decree. Such assistance is intended only to facilitate the lawful execution of an existing decree and to ensure that the process of the Court is not frustrated by resistance or obstruction. Unless there is a subsisting order staying the execution proceeding, the 4 Executing Court is competent to take appropriate steps for giving effect to the decree in accordance with law. 10. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is also limited in its scope. Such jurisdiction is exercised to keep the subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and to correct patent jurisdictional errors, perversity or material procedural irregularity resulting in failure of justice. It is not intended to substitute the view of this Court for that of the Executing Court merely because another view may be possible on the same set of facts. 11. In the present case, the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any jurisdictional error, patent illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order. The learned Executing Court, having regard to the fact that the decree remained operative and there was no order of stay of execution passed by the competent Appellate Court, cannot be said to have acted beyond its jurisdiction in allowing the decree-holder's application for police assistance. 12. The pendency of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, coupled with the pendency of the prayer for stay under Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, therefore, does not by itself furnish any ground for interference with the impugned order. If the petitioner ultimately succeeds in obtaining an order of stay from the learned First Appellate Court, the execution proceeding shall thereafter be governed by such order and the 5 Executing Court shall act in accordance with the directions, if any, passed by the Appellate Court. 13. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and upon perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds that there is no material irregularity or jurisdictional infirmity warranting invocation of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 14. Accordingly, the revisional application is dismissed. 15. Let a copy of this order be sent down to the learned Executing Court immediately for information and necessary action. 16. There shall be no order as to costs. 17. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on payment of requisite fees. (Prasenjit Biswas, J.)