Court No. 6 (265719) 10.09.2026 (AD 14) (S. Banerjee) CO 3044 of 2026 Sri Tapas Kumar Maity Vs. Sri Pradip Kumar Chatterjee & Ors. Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee Ms. Sima Ghosh …for the petitioner This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the judgment-debtor and is directed against an order dated June 2, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) 3rd Court at Asansol in Misc. Case No. 5 of 2020 arising out of Title Execution Case No. 3 of 2019. By the order impugned, the application filed by the petitioner praying for police help for execution of the judgment and decree, stood allowed. Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that it has been alleged in the application under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code that the resistance/obstruction was made on January 13, 2020 and the application under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code was filed on February 17, 2020. By referring to the provisions of Article 129 of the Limitation Act, 1963, Mr. Mukherjee contended 2 that an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code for removal of resistance has to be filed within 30 days from the date of such resistance or obstruction. He submits that since the application under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code was filed beyond the period of limitation, the same was barred by limitation and could not have been allowed by the learned Judge of the executing court. In support of such contention Mr. Mukherjee places reliance upon a decision of a coordinate Bench in the case of Bablu Kumar Pal & Ors. –Vs.- Sunil Kumar Pal, reported at 2014 SCC OnLine Cal 6674 and an order dated April 7, 2021 passed by a coordinate Bench in CO 305 of 2021 in the case of Sanjit Dey –Vs.- Namita Samanta & Ors., reported at 2021(2) ICC(Cal) 770. There is no quarrel to the proposition of law laid down in Bablu Kumar Pal (supra) that in view of Article 129 of the Limitation Act, an application made for possession after removing resistance to delivery of possession of immovable property under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code has to be filed within 30 days and the time prescribed shall reckon from the date of resistance or obstruction. Though the application was captioned as one under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code, 3 the substance of the said application and the reliefs claimed therein are to be taken into consideration. The opposite-parties/decree-holders filed a suit for declaration of title, injunction and for recovery of khas possession being Title Suit No. 94 of 2008 against the petitioner and the said suit was decreed on contest by a judgment and decree dated January 24, 2019. By the said judgment and decree it was declared that the opposite-parties are the absolute owner of the property mentioned in Schedule B attached to the application and the opposite-parties also got a decree for recovery of khas possession of B schedule property and the petitioner was restrained from creating any disturbance in the manner of peaceful enjoyment of the opposite-parties and the petitioner was also directed to remove any construction upon the C schedule property so made touching upon the B schedule property. It is the specific case made out in the said application filed by the decree-holders/opposite- parties that on January 13, 2020 the decree-holders along with the Court appointed Nazir and two persons visited the schedule property which was identified by the decree-holders for taking possession of the B schedule property but due to resistance and obstruction created by the men and agents of the judgment-debtor/petitioner herein, the Court appointed Nazir failed to recover the possession of the 4 suit property. The judgment-debtor filed a written objection specifically denying that neither the Nazir nor any person associated with him, went to the schedule property to execute the decree and there was no question of causing any obstruction in the execution of the decree. The report of the Nazir dated January 14, 2020 was marked as Exhibit 1. In the said report it was stated that on January 14, 2020, the Seal Bailiff who deposed as PW 2 went to the suit schedule property to execute the writ and could not find the judgment- debtor. However, the employee of the judgment-debtor was present at the suit property and also resisted the Seal Bailiff in executing the decree. According to the report the Seal Bailiff anticipated breach of peace and safety for which he left the suit property without executing the writ. In the evidence of the judgment- debtor who deposed as PW-1, it was stated that the decreetal property is still in possession of the judgment-debtor but the same is under lock and key and he is also not using the same. The OPWs-2 and 3, stated to be the employees of the judgment-debtor, stated that they were not present at the locale at the time of execution of the writ on January 13, 2020. That the property was under lock and key is admitted by the judgment-debtor/petitioner herein. 5 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 al 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. As observed hereinbefore that in the report of the Seal Bailiff he has stated that he anticipated breach of peace and safety for which he left the suit scheduled property without executing the writ. Thus, the preconditions for passing an order under Article 208 of the Civil Rules and Orders stand satisfied in the case on hand. The learned Judge of the executing Court after taking note of the report of the Seal Bailiff and the evidence of the Seal Bailiff as well as the OPWs-1, 2 and 3 recorded that due to obstruction caused by the employees of the judgment-debtor, possession could 6 not be handed over by the Seal Bailiff since there was an apprehension of breach of peace. The learned Judge of the executing Court assigned detailed reasons in the impugned order granting police aid in the matter of execution of the writ for delivery of possession, this Court is not inclined to interfere with such order. Though the application was captioned as one under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code, but since the same was in substance an application under Rule 208 of the Civil Rules and Orders, the decision of the coordinate Bench in Bablu Kumar Pal (supra) cannot come to the aid of the petitioner. There is no quarrel to the proposition of law laid down in Panka Lal Bag –Vs.- Santosh Kumar Sikdar, reported at AIR 1984 Cal 232 which was relied upon by the coordinate Bench in Sanjit Dey (supra) that the application for police help is not an application for execution within the meaning of Order 21 Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code. The person seeking to execute will make an application to the Court if obstructed and complaining of any resistance or obstruction as provided under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code will follow. In Panka Lal Bag (supra) an exception was also carved out. It was observed that police help is entirely 7 different. If the decree cannot be executed without police help because of the conduct of the person occupying the premises – may they be judgment- debtors or any other person or persons and such conduct tends to create an atmosphere of breach of peace the decree-holder may apply to the Court for grant of such help stating the reasons. The very nature of the application for police help is essentially different from an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code. In the case on hand, it is the stand of the judgment-debtors that they did not resist the Nazir or the decree-holder on January 13, 2020. In Panka Lal Bag (supra) it has been held that in an application for police help under Rule 208 of the Civil Rules and Orders, there need not be any actual resistance and such a help can be prayed for and such a procedure can be availed of at any time even when breach of peace is apprehended or anticipated. Police help is an aid to execution, and in such a case the provisions of Article 129 of the Limitation Act have no application for resorting to such a special legal procedure. Thus, the decision in the case of Panka Lal Bag (supra) do not advance the case of the judgment- debtor/petitioner but the same ultimately assists the opposite-parties. 8 For all the reasons as aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly, this civil revision application stands dismissed without, however, any order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)