Court No. 6 (265719) 11.09.2026 (AD 82) (S. Banerjee) CO 2938 of 2026 Kamala Bhattacharjee & Anr. Vs. Mr. Suman Ganguly & Anr. Mr. N. G. Sarkar Mr. Ajay Debnath Sk. Akhtar Hossain Mr. Devranjan Das Mr. Partha Mukherjee Mr. Upamanuya Mukherjee …for the petitioners Ms. Shohini Chakrabarty Mr. Koushik Bhattacharya Mr. Suranjan Mondal Ms. Gargi Acharya …for the opposite-parties This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the judgment-debtor and is directed against an order being no. 79 dated July 30, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) 1st Court at Barasat in Title Execution Case o. 1 of 2014. By the order impugned, the application under Rule 208 of the Civil Rules and Orders was allowed directing the execution of the decree with police assistance. Mr. Debnath, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the pre-conditions under Rule 208 of the Civil Rules and Orders have not been satisfied in the case on hand and for such reason the 2 order impugned is liable to be set aside. He submits that the learned Judge of the executing court even after noting that there are several contradictions between the evidence of the Bailiff and the judgment- debtor, allowed the application under Rule 208 of the Civil Rules and Orders. In support of such contention he places reliance upon a decision of the coordinate Bench in the case of Sukamal Kanti Dey –Vs.- Sabita Chowdhury & Ors. passed on April 1, 2019 in CO 947 of 2019. He submits that there was no resistance made by the judgment-debtor on the date when the Bailiff allegedly went to the decreetal property and the learned Judge of the executing court ought not to have placed reliance on the evidence of the bailiff. Heard Ms. Chakrabarty, learned advocate appearing for the opposite-parties. She submits that the learned Judge of the executing court after being satisfied that the judgment-debtor had the intention to resist the decree by force, allowed the police help for execution of the decree. Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials placed. In Sukamal Kanti Dey (supra) the Bailiff report was submitted to the effect that there was resistance by the judgment-debtor. The judgment-debtor in his 3 evidence stated that he did not resist the Court Bailiff when he went to the suit property to execute the writ of possession. The coordinate Bench drew an adverse inference for non-examination of the witness in the Bailiff report and observed that the evidence of such person who is the only witness would be able to tell the truth before the court as to whether resistance was offered or not at the time of execution of the decree. The said decision cannot come to the aid of the petitioner in the case on hand for the reasons as stated hereinafter. Smt. Sudeshna Bhattacharjee, the judgment- debtor adduced evidence as DW-1. A copy of such evidence has been produced before this court by the learned advocate for the decree-holder. The said witness in her evidence has specifically stated that she will not handover the suit property in faovur of the decree-holders without creating any disturbance, breach of peace and annoyance and the solemn order of the court may be violated. If such is the specific stand of the judgment- debtor in evidence in the execution proceeding, this Court fails to understand as to what more is required 4 for the purpose of allowing an application under Rule 208 of the Civil Rules and Orders. At this stage it would be relevant to take note of the provisions of Rule 208 of the Civil Rules and Orders. Rule 208 of the Civil Rules and Orders states that a decree-holder praying for police help in execution shall state in his application the very reasons thereof, supported, if required, by an affidavit. The Court may further examine the decree- holder or such other persons as it thinks fit touching the necessity of police help. If upon a consideration of all the facts and circumstances, the presiding Judge is of the clear opinion that there are reasonable grounds to suppose that execution will not be effected without serious danger to the public peace, he may, after recording his reason for so doing, make a request to the Superintendent of Police of the district for such police aid as the latter may be able to give in the execution of the writ. It is to be understood that police help is to be regarded as an extreme step and it should not be recommended unless the Court is fully convinced of the existence of a grave urgency. Though the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners would submit that there was no grave 5 urgency for the learned Judge of the executing court to allow the prayer for police help for execution of the writ of delivery of possession, the learned Judge of the executing court took pains to go through the evidence of the respective parties as well as the Bailiff’s report. The learned Judge of the executing court specifically noted that the Court Bailiff Mailan Debnath furnished a comprehensive report regarding the incident dated January 14, 2026 and the same has been marked as Exhibit-4 and 4/b. Considering the conduct of the judgment-debtor as is reflected from the case record, the Executing Court was constrained to disbelieve the statement of the DW-1. This Court finds that upon perusal of the Exhibit 4 the learned executing court recorded that the same reveals the truth of the incident dated January 14, 2026. The learned executing court further noted that there is a statement written only on the Exhibit-6 by the DW-1 in vernacular language, the English of which means that “she will not vacate the possession of the room today and if any attempt is made to take forcible possession, it will cause a serious breach of peace”. Signature of Sudeshna Bhattacharya was appended thereafter. After recording the aforesaid facts in details, the learned Judge of the executing court arrived at a finding that there is a chance of serious breach of 6 peace in the locale at the time of execution of the writ by the Court Bailiff. The learned Judge of the executing court also noted the statement of the learned counsel for the judgment-debtor, namely Shib Nath Das appearing in Exhibit 4/b that the said counsel stated that the judgment-debtor no. 1 will cause serious breach of peace. After taking note of the aforesaid fact the learned Judge of the executing court drew an inference of serious breach of peace and passed an order allowing the application under Rule 208 of Civil Rules and Orders. Upon going through the materials placed, this Court is of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any perversity. To the mind of this Court, the inference drawn by the learned Judge of the executing Court of serious breach of peace is based on relevant materials. Such view, to the mind of this Court is reasonable view in the facts of this case do not call for any interference within the limited scope under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. For the reasons as aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the 7 Constitution of India. This civil revision application accordingly stands dismissed. Though this is a fit case for imposition of exemplary cost upon the judgment-debtor, but considering the age of the judgment-debtor this Court refrains from imposing such cost upon her. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)