JUDGMNET: 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard by consent. 2. Petitioner is challenging:- (a) The order passed below Exh.40, whereby the court has declined to accept the petitioner’s objection as to the maintainability of the 2nd application for execution of decree when 1st application was dismissed for want of prosecution. (b) The order passed below Exh.37 by which police aid has been granted. AS TO FILING OF 2ND APPLICATION FOR EXECUTION OF DECREE: 3. The Executing Court held that fresh execution is not barred, as Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as it no application to execution proceedings particularly when there was no fresh adjudicable issue between the parties covered by any adjudication done earlier. 4. Petitioner is relying upon the Judgment in the case of Om Prakash Navani & Another V/s Herebert Joseph Pereira & others reported in 2003(3) ALL MR 657 657, to urge that fresh application for execution is not maintainable once notice under Rule 22 of Order 21 of CPC. is dismissed. 5. Reliance is placed particularly on the observations contained in para 5 of the Judgment in case of supra Om Prakash supra, where this Court has expressed that the remedy was available to the decree holder to have applied under Rule 106 of Order 21 of CPC. 6. As is spelt out from Rule 106, the said rule provides for setting aside an ’exparte order’ under Rule 22 of Order 21 or Rules 97 to 104 thereof (which rules are not referred but are mentioned as only rules referable by implication), but does not contemplate and meet a situation of dismissal of application for execution for want of prosecution & a fresh filing of such application. 7. The case on hand was not initiated by a party coming with a request for setting aside an exparte order. 8. Though in this Court’s Judgment in case of Om Prakash supra dismissal of a notice under Rule 22 of Order 21 of C.P.C. is discussed, on facts said was not a case on "Exparte Judgment" sought to be set aside by the party concerned. That too was a case of dismissal of case described as a ’notice of show cause cause’. That too was a case of dismissal of case described as a ’notice of show cause cause’. It is however not clear from facts as disclosed in the report as to whether it was dismissal upon adjudication on merits and hence a case of implied or constructive res-judicata. 9. As is conclusive from the text of Judgment in case of supra Om Prakash supra, it is seen that court was persuaded to hold that it is a case governed by principles analogous to Rule 13 of Order IX of CPC which are reiterated or incorporated in Rule 106 of Order 21 of C.P.C. and by adopting same principle for an ’Exparte Order’ when passed under Rule 22 or Rules foregoing to Rule 106 i.e. ( Rule 97 to 104 etc. of Order 21 of C.P.C.) can be passed. 10. The Judgment in case of Om Prakash supra relied upon by the petitioner is silent on the reasons due to which fresh application, for execution of decree would be barred due to Rule 106 of Order 21 of C.P.C. AS TO POLICE HELP: 11. Objection to the impugned order is raised urging that similar request was once granted. In earlier round when help was granted, it is alleged that the police gave necessary help and also gave a report that the help was not sought & used for bonafide need etc., and that thereafter the execution petition was dismissed for want of prosecution. 12. Insofar as grant of police aid is concerned, the objections as to grant of police help and decision thereon is concerned, it is seen that, it is an ancillary matter. 13. Petitioner has not brought on record either before the Executing Court or before this court as to how the help of police is not required this time. 14. Petitioner has even failed to commit that he is not obstructing petitioner’s possession or as to how the exercise to execute the decree is abused. 15. Nothing is shown to preclude the petitioner from opposing on facts, as to how any aid from police was not warranted, however the petitioner has chosen to oppose on the ground as to maintainability. 16. In the result, what emerges is that both the orders impugned are neither without jurisdiction nor illegal. No interference is called for. Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.