JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was as follows :–– Heard the submission of the Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Asoke Kr. Sen Gupta being assisted by Mr. Samirendra Mohan Chowdhury and the Learned Senior Advocate for the Caveator-opposite parties, Mr. Bhaskar Bhattacharjee being assisted by Mr. Harish Tandon. Considered the materials on record. 2. The judgment debtors, as petitioners, by the instant revision, have challenged order No. 105 dated 1.3.96 passed in Misc. Case No. 1314/1986 which has been registered before the Learned Judge, 9th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta, upon an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of the C.P.C. read with Rule 208 of the Civil Rules and Orders, praying for police help on the ground that the decree could be executed because of resistance and there was apprehension of breach of peace. The said prayer has been granted by the Learned Judge by the order impugned and the judgment debtors have challenged that order in this revision. 3. In this back-drop Mr. Sen Gupta contended that there is no provision under Order 21 Rules 97 and 98 of the C.P.C. for granting police help and the same can be granted only under Rule 208 of the Civil Rules and Orders on fulfilment of certain conditions as enshrined under sub-rule (1) of Rule 208 of the said Rules. In support of his contention Mr. Sen Gupta relied on a Single Bench decision in the case of (1) Mrs. Ajit Roy v. Jnendra Nath Dey reported in AIR 1975 Calcutta 433 and particularly upon Paragraph 8 of that decision. At page 435 in Paragraphs 7 and 8 of that decision it has been held as follows :–– "The prayer for police help may be made by the decree-holder either in an application under Rule 97 and/or 98 of Order 21 of C.P.C. or separately without filing such application or before any specific obstruction made by a particular person". Para-8 But Rule 208 can be used only in exceptional cases and not too readily when the Court will be of opinion that unless police help is given there will be danger to the public peace on account of the execution of the decree. This application for police help is a discretionary matter to the Learned Judicial Officer who deals with it. This application for police help is a discretionary matter to the Learned Judicial Officer who deals with it. So, it is evident that even before the obstruction, Order 21 Rule 97/98 of the C.P.C. can be resorted to and Rule 208 of the Civil Rules and Orders is available only upon obstruction or resistance. Mr. Sen Gupta also relied on another decision of a Single Bench in the case of (2) Gopi Krishna Majhi v. Judisthir Dey reported in AIR 1995 Calcutta 263. In that decision the Learned Single Judge held that where the resistance has been offered in executing the decree by a third person, in that case, Order 21 Rule 35 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. is not available and when the resistance is offered by a judgment debtor, in that case Order 21 Rule 35 is available. 4. Mr. Bhattacharjee, on the other hand, contended that even in view of the decision of the Learned Single Judge in the case of Mrs. Ajit Roy (supra), an application under Order 21 Rule 97 or 98 is available even in a case where there was no resistance. 5. Heard the submissions of the Learned Advocates for the parties and considered the materials on record. Order 21 Rule 97 of the C.P.C. provides as follows :–– "(1) Where the holder of a decree for the possession of immovable property of 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." So, this provision specifies as to the persons who are entitled and who are not entitled. Sub-rule (2) of Order 21 Rule 97 specifies the power of the Court, that is, upon filing of such an application the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the application according to law contained therein, meaning contained in the C. P. C., Rule 98 of Order 21 has got two parts. Sub-rule (2) of Order 21 Rule 97 specifies the power of the Court, that is, upon filing of such an application the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the application according to law contained therein, meaning contained in the C. P. C., Rule 98 of Order 21 has got two parts. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 98 provides as follows:–– "(1) Upon the determination of the question referred to in Rule 101, the Court shall, in accordance with such determination and subject to the provision of sub-rule (2) –– (a) make an order allowing the application and directing that the applicant be put into the possession of the property or dismissing the application; or (b) pass such other order as, in the circumstances of the case, it may deem fit. (2) Where, upon such determination, the Court is satisfied that the resistance or obstruction was occasioned without any just cause by the judgment-debtor or by some other person at his instigation or on his behalf, or by any transferee, where such transfer was made during the pendency of the suit or execution proceeding, it shall direct that the applicant be put into possession of the property, and where the applicant is still resisted or obstructed in obtaining possession, the Court may also, at the instance of the applicant, order the judgment-debtor or any person acting at his instigation or on his behalf, to be detained in the civil prison for a term which may extend to thirty days." 6. Relying on sub-rule (2) of Rule 98 of Order 21 of the C. P. C., it was the contention of Mr. Sen Gupta that the only remedy left to the Court upon an application under Order 21, in case of resistance to put the person who is resisting the execution of the decree or executing the same, to put him to prison. 7. This cannot be the interpretation. The Court is not so helpless. That indication is available in Clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 98 of Order 21, where the Code gives power to the Court to pass such other order as in the circumstances of the case, it may deem fit. 8. 7. This cannot be the interpretation. The Court is not so helpless. That indication is available in Clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 98 of Order 21, where the Code gives power to the Court to pass such other order as in the circumstances of the case, it may deem fit. 8. If such other order means only the order of detention of the person who resisted or obstructed the execution of the decree, then such provision of Clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 98 would not have been there as this would have been redundant. But it is the common principle of law that the legislature shall not use any unnecessary word or incorporate some provision without any purpose. So, this power has been given to the Court to pass such order in an appropriate case as it deems fit to the Court and that power is not controlled by the provision of sub-rule (2) of Rule 98 of Order 21 of the C. P. C. 9. If the execution of the decree with police help is resisted then the executing Court in exercise of the power under sub-rule (2) of Rule 98 of Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Code may order for detention in civil prison the resistor as mentioned in sub-rule (2). The learned Executing Court found that the execution of the decree was obstructed and also found from the report, filed by the bailiff and proved by him, is correct. Thereafter he held, "There is nothing to disbelieve the testimony and the report of the Court bailiff in his matter". 10. So the learned Executing Court relied upon the bailiff's report where it has been stated that there was an apprehension of breach of peace. In such circumstances, in my view, the Court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction by granting police help by the order impugned. Accordingly, I find no justification in interfering with the order impugned and I dismiss this revisional application. Learned Advocates for the parties are given liberty to take down the gist of the order and to communicate the same to the Learned Executing Court and the Learned Executing Court is directed to act on such communication.