BHAGABATI PROSAD BANERJEE, J, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application for restoration of possession filed by the defendant/appellant before this Court. This second appeal was admitted by this court on 22/03/1991 and immediately after the admission of the appeal, the application was presented for appropriate order. ( 2 ) THE learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respondent stated on instruction from the respondent No. 1 who was present in court that the respondents had taken possession of two rooms on the ground floor and one room and one bath room on the 1st floor of premises No. 38, S. N. Banerjee Road,barrackpore and that the respondent No. 1 was occupying the said premises after executing the decree. Mr. Sakti Nath Mukherjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the appellants have been forcibly dispossessed by the bailiff with police help even though there was no order from the executing court for any police help. It was submitted that all goods and belongings of the appellant were thrown on the street on 22/03/1991 whereupon this court passed an order directing the Superintendent of Police, 24 Parganas, North to submit a report and to appoint a receiver for preservation of the property under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Munsiff was directed to submit a report under that circumstances such dispossession took place with police force. On affidavits the matter was heard on the question of granting of appropriate order as prayed for by the appellant in view of that dispossession had been taken place. This appeal was presented before this court on 20/01/1991. A report was given on 21/03/1991 and ultimately the matter was heard on 22/03/1991 after the appeal was presented and before the appeal was heard, the dispossession had taken place. ( 3 ) THE plaintiff in this case filed a suit for declaration of title of the suit property and the suit was ultimately dismissed by the trial Court. The lower Appellate Court has reversed the judgment and was pleased to decree the suit in respect of Schedule 'b' property. ( 3 ) THE plaintiff in this case filed a suit for declaration of title of the suit property and the suit was ultimately dismissed by the trial Court. The lower Appellate Court has reversed the judgment and was pleased to decree the suit in respect of Schedule 'b' property. Under the decree passed by the lower Appellate Court the plaintiff/opposite party was entitled to decree for recovery of possession in respect of Schedule 'b' property from the defendant/appellant No. l. The Appellate Court decreed the suit by the order and judgment dated 13/09/1990 passed in Title Appeals Nos. 89, 90 and 91 of 1989. From the certified copy of the decree passed by the Court below, it appears that"schedule B All that piece and parcel of land measuring 16 x30' about 3/4 kotta out of a schedule property with one pucca room on the western side with some vacant land, on the south of S. N. Banerjee Road, Barrackpore, P. S. Titagarh Dist. 24 Parganas bounded on the north by the S. N. Banerjee Road, on the south the tank of Pradip Chatterjee, on the West by Lalit Pharmacy (plaintiff's own land), on the east by the Kashmira Stores (plaintiff's own land ). " ( 4 ) THE records of the court below were called for. From the records of the Executing Court it appears that an application under Order 21, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for execution of the said decree in respect of the said schedule B property to the plaint, was filed on 14/02/1991 and on 18/02/1991 the learned Munsif, 4th Court, Sealdah was pleased to pass the following order :". . . . Verification made Dhr. files a petition supported by an affidavit praying for taking delivery of possession by breaking open the pad lock and bolt of the door is considered and the prayer is allowed. Requisites already put in. Issue of writ of possession u/o. 21, Rule 35, C. P. C. fixing 20-3-91 for returns and order. . . . Verification made Dhr. files a petition supported by an affidavit praying for taking delivery of possession by breaking open the pad lock and bolt of the door is considered and the prayer is allowed. Requisites already put in. Issue of writ of possession u/o. 21, Rule 35, C. P. C. fixing 20-3-91 for returns and order. " ( 5 ) IT further appears that in the application for execution filed by the plaintiff/respondent, 'b' schedule property was described as follows :"all that piece and parcel of land measuring 16'30" about 3/4 ketta out of A schedule property with one pucca room on the western side with some vacant land on the south of S. N. Banerjee Road, Barrackpore, P. S' Titagarh, Dist. 24 parganas bounded on the north by S. N. Banerjee Road, on the south by the tank of Pradip Chatterjee, on the west by Lalit Pharmacy (plaintiff's own land) on the east by the Kashmira Stores (plaintiff's own land) - the said room and land were formerly occupied by Ledu or Nidhi Mohan Karmakar, since evicted. " ( 6 ) ON the basis of the order passed by the learned Munsif dated 18-2-91 a writ of possession was issued for the purpose of taking delivery of 'b' Schedule property and to hand over the same to the respondents. In the said writ of possession issued by the Executing Court, Schedule 'b' property mentioned as "all that piece and parcel of land measuring about 16'30'' about 3/4 kattah out of a Schedule property with one pucca room on the western side with some vacant land on the south of S. N. Banerjee Road, Barrackpore, P. S. Titagarh Dist. 24-Parganas. " ( 7 ) THE said process for execution was issued under the seal and signature of the learned Munsif pursuant to the order dated 18-2-91. The Nazir attached to the office of the Munsif made an endorsement on the writ of possession to the extent that the same was made over to Tarak Nath Sengupta for service and return by 7/03/1991 which was extended to 13/03/1991. From the reports submitted by the police authorities before this Court pursuant to the order passed by this court on 22/03/1991, it revealed that the Judgment-debtor Sri Rabindra Nath Ghosh, respondent herein, filed an application under Sections 107/144 (2) of Cr. From the reports submitted by the police authorities before this Court pursuant to the order passed by this court on 22/03/1991, it revealed that the Judgment-debtor Sri Rabindra Nath Ghosh, respondent herein, filed an application under Sections 107/144 (2) of Cr. P. C. before the learned Executive Magistrate, Barrackpore which was registered as M. P. Case No. 604 of 1991 dated 5/03/1991. In the said application under Section 107 of Cr. P. C. the respondent/judgment-debtor stated that he had obtained a decree and had also instituted a case for execution in Title Execution Case No. 15/91 before the learned 4th Munsif, Sealdah for taking delivery of possession of the scheduled premises and that the Executing Court was pleased to pass an order directing the court bailiff to take delivery of the scheduled property 6/03/1991. It was further stated that "the said O. P. with the help of some anti socials are threatening the petitioner saying that they would obstruct into said execution work and even they might assault the petitioner and any person who would object into their illegal activities for which a serious apprehension of the breach of peace is prevailing over the said issue. " It was further stated that the matter was duly reported to the local police station. In the said application under Section 107/144 (2) of Cr. P. C. a prayer was made that "your Honour would be pleased to take steps against said O. Ps. U/s. 107/144 (2) Cr. P. C. restraining the O. P. or her associates or any agent or agents from causing any obstruction in any manner at the time of taking delivery of the possession of the schedule room/premises in course of the execution of the order passed by the Ld. 4th Munsif, Sealdah in connection with T. Ex.-15/91 directing O/c. Barrackpore P. S. to render all sorts of help to the court bailiff for ends of justice. " ( 8 ) IN the said application filed before the Executive Magistrate Barrackpore, a schedule of property disclosed by the judgment debtor, respondent herein, was "premises in 38 S. N. Banerjee Road, Barrackpore, P. S. Titagarh, Dist. North 24-Parganas. Now in illegal occupation of O. P. " In the said application Mr. " ( 8 ) IN the said application filed before the Executive Magistrate Barrackpore, a schedule of property disclosed by the judgment debtor, respondent herein, was "premises in 38 S. N. Banerjee Road, Barrackpore, P. S. Titagarh, Dist. North 24-Parganas. Now in illegal occupation of O. P. " In the said application Mr. N. B. Pal Executive Magistrate passed the following ex parte order on 5/03/1991 :"o. C. Titagarh P. S. is directed to render all sorts of police help to the bailiff at the time of handing over of possession of the suit property as mentioned, in the schedule. Directed to comply with the order of the Ld. 4th Munsif of Sealdah Court, Report and compliance on 8-3-91. " ( 9 ) IT appears that the order was served upon the Officer-in-charge of Titagarh Police Station and on 7/03/1991 Sri Nemai Chandra Dey, S. I. of Police, P. S. Titagarh submitted a report of the Additional Superintendent of Police, Barrackpore, Titagarh P. S. that he has enquired into the contents of the letter and the same revealed that the suit property was under the possession of the occupant since long. It also transpires that on receipt of the said letter of the Executive Magistrate, the Officer-in-charge of Titagarh Police Station submitted a report to the Executive Magistrate through Additional Superintendent of Police, Barrackpore for some clarifications in which it was stated that "in returning herewith the original petition, I beg to report that I have perused the order of the Judge's Court, Alipore. The Court ordered the O. P. to vacate the suit property within 90 days otherwise, bailiff would go to take over possession. But this yet to be ascertained whether the order was served upon the O. P. In case of Police help in connection with T. Ex. , the concerned court sends requisition to Addl. S. P. Barrackpore and he provides police help after realising police cost. Hence, police help could not be provided in handing over possession of the suit property. Moreover, the F. P. could not produce any document in support of para No. 3 of the petition. " Para 3 of the petition refers to the order passed by the Executing Court for delivery of the property by 6-3-91. Hence, police help could not be provided in handing over possession of the suit property. Moreover, the F. P. could not produce any document in support of para No. 3 of the petition. " Para 3 of the petition refers to the order passed by the Executing Court for delivery of the property by 6-3-91. " On the basis of the said report submitted by the officer-in-charge of the said police station on 5/03/1991, Executive Magistrate passed the following and the ex parte order on 6/03/1991 :"seen the report of O. C. Titagarh P. S. Heard the petitioner send copy of order to the Addl. S. P. Barrackpore for determining the cost of police picket for delivery of possession in connection with I. Ex. No. 15/91, passed by the Ld. 4th Munsif, Sealdah. " ( 10 ) IT further appears on the basis of the assessments made by the police authorities, a sum of Rs. 1016. 00 was deposited in the treasury on 7/03/1991 and on 8/03/1991, the Additional Superintendent of Police, Barrackpore informed the Munsif, 4th Court Sealdah i. e. the Executing Court by memo No. 570/e dated 8-3-91 as follows :"date and time has been fixed on 12-3-91 on 11 hours to render police help in connection with above mentioned case. The process server may kindly be directed to report O. C. Titagarh P. S. earlier on the date fixed for taking delivery of the possession. The party has deposited police cost as per order dated 6-3-91 of N. B. Pal, Executive Magistrate, Barrackpore in connection with I. P. Case No. 604 of 1991. "if the execution is not held on the date fixed this office may kindly be intimintimated on 11-3-91 within office hours so that the arrangement made for this purpose may be treated as postponed otherwise the amount deposited by the party concerned will be treated as forfeited to the Government. " Copy of the said memo was forwarded to the Officer-in-charge of Titagarh Police Station with the following endorsement O. C. Titagarh P. S. for information and necessary action. He will please depute a force comprising 2 (two) SIS, 1 (one) ASI, 6 (six) constables and 3 (three) LHGs for the said purpose on 12-3-91 at 11. " Copy of the said memo was forwarded to the Officer-in-charge of Titagarh Police Station with the following endorsement O. C. Titagarh P. S. for information and necessary action. He will please depute a force comprising 2 (two) SIS, 1 (one) ASI, 6 (six) constables and 3 (three) LHGs for the said purpose on 12-3-91 at 11. 00 hours and see that the breach of the peace can take place at the time of execution of Court's order also submit a compliance report to this office. The place of operation is 38, S. N. Banerjee Road, under Titagarh P. S. Dist. North 24-Parganas. "these facts are all admitted facts. ( 11 ) IT also appears that pursuant to the communication made by the Additional Superintendent of Police to the learned Munsif 4th Court. Sealdah by the memo dated 8/03/1991, the process server/bailiff attended Titagarh Police Station on the date and time fixed and from the police station he went to the premises in question where with the police help the appellant had been dispossessed and all belonging including the almirah, beds, cots, table, chairs, suitcases, beddings had been thrown into the public street. Some photographs were annexed to the affidavit and from the photographs it appears that by the side of the goods and belongings which were thrown into the public street, one police officer was sitting leisurely. These photographs had not been denied and disputed by the respondents and it has not been stated that this was not a real picture of the situation. In the report submitted by the police before this court the process server had made a note on the back page of the order of the Additional Superintendent of Police, Barrackpore vide memo No. 571/1 (3)/e dated 8-3-91 that in accordance with the identification of the property made by the decree-holder, after the execution was started, the officer from Titagarh Police Station came to the spot and taking over possession ceremony was concluded peacefully. In the report submitted by the police on 12-3-91 the said officer and the force returned to the police station after assisting providing police help to the process server Tara Nath Sengupta in making over possession to Sri Rabindra Nath Das. ( 12 ) PURSUANT to the order dated 22-3-91 the learned Munsif in his report dated 26/03/1991 had stated before this Court that "as per decree passed by the Ld. ( 12 ) PURSUANT to the order dated 22-3-91 the learned Munsif in his report dated 26/03/1991 had stated before this Court that "as per decree passed by the Ld. Appellate Court, the decree-holder filed one Title Execution No. 15/91 for delivery of possession. The writ was issued accordingly on 18-2-91. The process server went to the locals for execution and he has delivered the possession of the suit property at the identification of the D. Hr. on 12-3-91. He has filed his report accordingly which does not also reveal that the decree/writ was executed with the help of police. On 25-3-91 the J. Dr. filed a petn. u/ss. 144 and 151, C. P. C. for re-institution of the possession of the suit property and that petn. was supported by one Chiranjit Ghosh by swearing an affidavit the petn. was moved on 16-3-91 and after hearing, I have passed an order directing the O. C. Titagarh P. S. to submit a comprehensive report regarding the matter of police help which was not ordered by this court. On 20-3-91 the report came along with all the xerox copies of the order of Ld. Executive Magistrate on the petn. under S. 144 (2)/107, Cr. P. C. allowing the police help. " In the report submitted by the process server, the fact that the possession was taken over with the police help, was also suppressed by the bailiff. The learned Munsif appears to have suppressed the fact that the Additional District Magistrate informed the learned Munsif by memo dated 8-3-91 about rendering of police help for the purpose of taking over possession and that the Additional Superintendent of Police requested the learned Munsif to direct the process server to report to the police station earlier on the date of execution for the purpose of taking police help. From the communication made by the Additional Superintendent of Police Barrackpore to the learned Munsif, it was clear that the fact that police help was rendered by the police Magistrate in Title Execution No. 15/91 was drawn to the notice of the learned Munsif, 4th Court, Sealdah before the possession was taken over and that pursuant to such direction issued by the Additional Superintendent of police, the process server went to the police station for obtaining police help. ( 13 ) THESE are the facts under which the possession was taken over by the process server with police help and made over to the decree-holder/respondent on the date, even though there was no order for police help passed by the learned Munsif in title execution case. In the instant case after the process was issued for execution of the decree, the decree-holder straightway moved a petition under Section 107/144 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for obtaining police help for the purpose of executing the decree for delivery of possession of the suit property. In the certified copy of the decree 'b' Schedule property was more or less 16'x30". The application filed by the decree-holder also mentioned that area. The process was issued by the learned executing court for that area. On scrutiny of the criminal plaint from the records forwarded by this court of course it appears that the said area was 16'30", which area is correct or not for us at this stage to decide, inasmuch as, before the Executing Court the Decree-holder mentioned in area in 'b' Schedule property as 16'30". In the writ of the process issued by the learned Munsif and on the basis of which the decree was sought to be executed, the area was mentioned as 16'x30" and as a matter of fact, the entire premises No. 38, S. N. Banerjee Road, it comprised of two rooms of the ground floor, one room and one bath-room on the 1st floor of the premises in question and that admittedly, the said two storied structure did not and cannot comprise of 16'x30" but beyond that. Admittedly, the police help was rendered for the purpose of recovery of entire premises No. 38, S. N. Banerjee Road, Barrackpore which is comprised of three rooms and bath room mentioned above. ( 14 ) ON the basis of the above facts it was contended by Mr. Admittedly, the police help was rendered for the purpose of recovery of entire premises No. 38, S. N. Banerjee Road, Barrackpore which is comprised of three rooms and bath room mentioned above. ( 14 ) ON the basis of the above facts it was contended by Mr. Sakti Nath Mukherjee learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that the bailiff had taken over possession with police force, even though there was no order for police help of the Executing Court and took over possession of areas which were beyond the area mentioned in the process or the writ issued by the learned Munsif, wherein it was specified that the possession should be taken only in respect of 16'x30" comprised of only one room, but as a matter of fact hereinbefore stated possession of two rooms on the ground floor and one room with one bath room on the 1st floor were taken over. Mr. Mukherjee submitted that this dispossession was not in accordance with law and on the contrary, it was a case of gross abuse of the process of law. It was the submission of Mr. Mukherjee that the Civil Procedure Code is a complete code in itself for the purpose of taking over possession of the properties and if necessary, with police help. In this connection, reference was made to the provisions of Order 21, Rule 24 (3) of the Civil Procedure Code which provides "in every such process, a day shall be specified on or before which it shall be executed and a day shall also be specified on or before which it shall be returned to the Court, but no process shall be deemed to be void if no day for its return is specified therein. " Mr. Mukherjee submitted that in the order passed by the Executive Court on 18-2-91 as we well as in the process issued by the learned Munsif for taking over possession, no date was specified on or before which it should be executed, but only returnable date was fixed. Relying upon the provisions of Order 21, Rule 34 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, Mr. Relying upon the provisions of Order 21, Rule 34 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, Mr. Mukherjee submitted that unless a date is specified in the process on or before which it should be executed, the process should be treated to be void and illegal and on the basis of such void process, no possession could be taken over and even if the possession had forcibly been obtained on the basis of the void process, that taking over possession was no possession in the eye of law, inasmuch as, under the law, a person can only be dispossessed in accordance with law. Any dispossession made forcibly and under a void process, is a dispossession which law cannot recognise. In this connection, reference was made to the decision of this court in the case of Dipak Kumar Mushi v. Smt. Meera Chatterjee reported (1986) 2 Cal HCN 350, wherein it was held by the Division Bench of this Court that failure to specify the date on or before which the decree should be executed, the decree would become void. ( 15 ) IT was next submitted by Mr. Mukherjee that in the instant case, the process was issued ex parte without giving an opportunity to the judgment-debtor and stated that at the initial stage, such a process could be ex parte. But if any question arises for taking possession with police help, in that event, the mandatory provision of Order 21, Rule 97 had to be adhered to, which provides "where the holder of a decree for the possession of immovable property or the purchaser of any such property sold in execution of a decree is resisted or obstructed by any person in obtaining possession of the property he may make an application to the Court complaining of such resistance or obstruction, whereupon this court should proceed to adjudicate upon the application in accordance with the provisions contained therein. ( 16 ) OUR attention was also drawn to the provisions of Rule 208 of the Civil Rules and Orders which was framed by this High Court in accordance with the power conferred upon the High Court under the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure Rule 208 of the Civil Rules and order framed by this Court provides -"a decree-holder praying for police help in execution shall state in his application the full 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 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 emergency. " ( 17 ) ACCORDING to Mr. Mukherjee the alleged dispossession with police help by the process server was void on the ground, firstly, the process server with the police help obtained possession of areas in excess of areas mentioned in the process, secondly, the possession was taken with police help by practising a fraud upon the statute and thirdly, the execution was on the face of it void, inasmuch as, no date for execution is as mandatorily provided under Order 21 Rule 24 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 18 ) MR. Mukherjee submitted that after admitting the second appeal, this court is competent to pass an order for recovery of possession if the Court feels that the dispossession had been made without the authority of law and by adoption of a procedure not contemplated or provided under the law and in support of this contention Mr. Mukherjee relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Indian Cables Co. Ltd. v. Sumitra Chakraborthy reported in AIR 1985 Cal 248 . ( 19 ) MR. Mukherjee relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Indian Cables Co. Ltd. v. Sumitra Chakraborthy reported in AIR 1985 Cal 248 . ( 19 ) MR. Mukul Prakash Banerjee followed up by Mr. Dipankar Ghosh, learned Advocates, appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that this court had no jurisdiction to decide the question which had been raised by Mr. Mukherjee as these are matters exclusively within the jurisdiction of the executing court under S. 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. It was submitted that whether the execution was void, illegal and/or there had been excessive execution are questions arise between the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree can only be decided by the executing court and the High court had no jurisdiction to decide the questions which are exclusive within the jurisdiction of the Executing Court. It was submitted that in this case, the Executing Court is the only proper court which can decide these questions. It was submitted that even if the execution was void, the same has to be decided by the executing court. In this connection, reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Marla Ramanna v. Nalappa Raju reported in AIR 1956 SC 87 wherein the Supreme Court held that when a sale in execution of a decree is impugned on the ground that it is not warranted by the terms thereof, that question could be agitated, when it arises between parties to the decree, only by application under S. 47 and not in a separate suit". Reference was also made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of B. V. Patankar v. C. G. Sastri reported in AIR 1961 SC 272 . In this case, it was held that "where the executing court ignores the provisions of the Rent Control order prohibiting eviction of tenants and passes an order of delivery of possession in execution of a decree, the order can be set aside and an order of redelivery to the tenant can be passed on an application under S. 47 read with S. 151 of Civil Procedure Code. " ( 20 ) REFERENCE was also made to the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Jai Narain Ram Luddia v. Kedar Nath Khetan reported in AIR 1956 SC 359 where the Supreme Court held that "the executing court has to see that the defendant gives the plaintiff the very thing that the decree directs and not something else, so if there is any dispute about its identity or substance nobody but the court executing the decree can determine it. It is a matter distinctly relating to the execution, discharge and satisfaction of the decree and so, under S. 47, Civil P. C. it can only be determined by the Court executing the decree". In this case, where the decree directed that "against payment or tender by the plaintiffs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . the said defendants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . do execute in favour of the plaintiffs proper deed or deeds of transfer" and in this case, "when a decree imposes obligations on both sides which are so conditioned that performance by one is conditioned on performance by the other, execution will not be ordered unless the party seeking execution not only offers to perform his side but, when objection is raised, satisfies the executing court that he is in a position to do so. Any other rule would have the effect of varying the conditions of the decree; a thing that an executing court cannot do. " ( 21 ) FOR that aforesaid propositions, reference was also made to the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Ram Chand Spg. and Wvg. Mills v. Bijli Cotton Mills reported in AIR 1967 SC 1344 wherein it was held that "order for setting aside the auction sale as nullity on the ground that the deposit was not paid on the day the sale was held. The order is a final order and not an interlocutory order and as such falls within the definition of a decree under S. 2 (2) read with S. 47 of C. P. C. Reference was also made to the decision in the case of Harnandrai v. Debidutt reported in AIR 1973 SC 2423 . The order is a final order and not an interlocutory order and as such falls within the definition of a decree under S. 2 (2) read with S. 47 of C. P. C. Reference was also made to the decision in the case of Harnandrai v. Debidutt reported in AIR 1973 SC 2423 . Aygammal v. Thangavelu Padyacti reported in AIR 1950 Mad 317 , Moti Lal v. Bai Mani reported in AIR 1925 PC 86 for the purpose of explaining the scope of S. 47 of the Code of Civil procedure. It was also submitted on the basis of a maxim "falsa Demonstratio Non Nocet" which means, mere false description does not vitiate, if there be sufficient certainty as to the object. It was further submitted that this court had no jurisdiction to pass any order against the order passed in execution, inasmuch as, no appeal lies against the order for execution and the factum of execution is made by the executing court. Mr. Ghosh next submitted that O. 21, R. 23 (2) and (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure mentioned the word 'process' is not an order and submitted that the order for execution has to be passed by the Executing Court and not the process and as such no duty was cast under O. 21, R. 24 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure on the executing court to specify the date on or before which it shall be executed and that when the statute had not cast a duty upon the executing court to specify the date, non-specifying the date cannot vitiate the process, inasmuch as, the process is a ministerial act and is done nazirkhana. It was pointed out that on the body of the process there was an endorsement made by the Nazir whereby it was indicated a date with these words 'for service and return by 7-3-91 extended to 13-3-91. It was further submitted that there was a presumption of regularity in the act of the court and when the process by the court, the presumption was there that was issued correctly and after maintaining the provision of law and that such presumption can lightly deal with by the court. It was further submitted that there was a presumption of regularity in the act of the court and when the process by the court, the presumption was there that was issued correctly and after maintaining the provision of law and that such presumption can lightly deal with by the court. ( 22 ) ADMITTEDLY, in the instant case, the certified copy of the decree mentioned the area for which the decree was passed by was 16" x 30" and that the decree-holder in the application for execution filed before the executing court mentioned that area and the executing court passed process for execution of that area. Even assuming that there was a mistake in the area, no step was taken to rectify the mistake and that under the law, the bailiff has to execute the decree in terms of the process issued by the court and that admittedly, the execution was made for an area beyond the area mentioned in the process issued by the executing court. The law is well settled that the executing court cannot go behind the decree and that there cannot be any execution, unless there is a decree. In the instant case, the decree which was sought to be executed, was not executed by the bailiff under the case. In the instant case, from the facts it is clear that after the executing court had issued process, the judgment-debtor had filed a petition for drawing up a proceeding under S. 107/144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging that there would be resistance at the time when the decree would be executed by the bailiff and in the application before the Executive Magistrate the decree-holder did not mention the area in accordance with the area mentioned in the process and nor the area mentioned in the original plaint but giving a go-bye to the area which was the subject matter of the suit as 38, S. N. Banerjee Road. The petition was filed before the Executive Magistrate by Rabindra Nath Das against the judgment-debtor Smt. Usha Ghosh and her associates. There was a specific prayer before the Magistrate for an order upon the officer-in-charge of the said police station to render all sorts of police help to court bailiff in T. Ex. The petition was filed before the Executive Magistrate by Rabindra Nath Das against the judgment-debtor Smt. Usha Ghosh and her associates. There was a specific prayer before the Magistrate for an order upon the officer-in-charge of the said police station to render all sorts of police help to court bailiff in T. Ex. No. 15/91 for the ends of justice whereupon the learned Magistrate without issuing any show cause or giving any opportunity to the opposite party straightway directed the Officer-in-Charge of Titagarh Police Station to render all sorts of police help to the bailiff at the time of handing over possession of the suit property and also directed to comply with order for execution passed by the executing court. The Officer-in-Charge of the said police station pointed out that there was no such order from the executing court and any order was not shown by him. Surprisingly the Executive Magistrate ignoring the report of the Officer-incharge sent the copy of the order to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Barrackpore to determine costs of police picket in connection with the execution case. It is also on record that the bailiff in his report before the executing court pointed out that the possession has been given to the judgment-debtor and the judgment debtor's son had removed their goods peacefully. But it was submitted that the bailiff is guilty of giving a false report before the executing Court. The bailiff had suppressed the fact that he had gone there with police force. The fact that the police force was utilised for the purpose of dispossession was also within the knowledge of the learned Munsif, 4th Court, Sealdah. The manner in which it was done, clearly indicates that the whole thing was done at the instance and machination of the decree-holder, order under S. 144 has been held by the Supreme Court not a judicial order but it was an administrative order in the case of Gulam Abbas v. State of U. P. reported in AIR 1981 SC 2198 wherein the Supreme Court held that order under S. 144 was administrative in nature and not judicial or quasi judicial. The manner in which the Executive Magistrate had acted, was in short reckless. The manner in which the Executive Magistrate had acted, was in short reckless. The manner in which the police force was deployed at the cost of the decree-holder and the manner in which the learned Munsif ignored about the deployment of the police force and the manner in which the bailiff had deliberately submitted a false report, are clearly indicating the fact that it is the extra judicial power which has brought about the situation. The provision of the Code of Civil Procedure has been given a go-bye. This state of affair cannot be allowed to be continued and this court should not keep the eyes closed mere on the ground of technicalities. In such a case of police help by executing court, the court has to give an opportunity to the judgment-debtor before granting any police help, inasmuch as, it is an admitted position that taking of possession by police force was very unusual method. This court in the case of Gayanath Ghosh v. Amulya Chandra Sarkar reported in AIR 1957 Cal 252 wherein it was held that "the executing court while passing order for police help under the Code proceed with great confirm. The persons sought to be dispossessed is vitally affected by the order for police help and is entitled to be heard on an application praying for such help. It was further held that an order for police help obtained from Executing Court improperly was liable to be set aside. ( 23 ) IN this case the Executing Court issued a process for recovery of 16' x 30" mentioned in the Schedule B that admittedly an the basis of such a process possession was taken for the entire premises No. 38 S. N. Banerjee Road, Barrackpore which was beyond the process. Whether there was a mistake in the schedule of the process or not is not a matter to be decided by the bailiff or the police. If there was any defect or error it was for the executing court to correct it and it appears from the record that no application has been filed by the decree-holder to correct the mistake, if any, so long as it is not corrected by the executing court, possession of the property not mentioned in the process cannot be taken over with police help which is an extra judicial method adopted for the purpose. Further the order that was passed by the executing court under O. 21, R. 97, is a judicial order not an administrative or quasi judicial. In the instant case, the decree-holder obtained a process for taking delivery of possession from the executing court, went to the Executive Magistrate and obtained an order for police help after depositing the huge sum of money and the bailiff went there with police force and with police help forcibly dispossessed the judgment-debtor and thrown to the public street. The photographs are showing that the goods are lying on the street and a police officer was sitting there. It has not been denied and disputed by the decree-holder, even though the photographs are annexed to the petition. If the practice which was adopted in this particular case is not stopped, in that event, the decree-holder who had money and influence, can do whatever they like. Unless this system is stopped by any judicial pronouncement, people's confidence, on the judicial system of this country, will be shakened forever and if this state of affair is allowed to be continued and if this court do not take steps by keeping the hand folded, the rule of law will be replaced by a system which would be subversive to the cause of justice. Money and man power will