Judgment : 1. Rule returnable forthwith. 2. Heard finally by consent. 3. Mr. R. Noronha, learned Advocate waives notice on behalf of the respondents. 4. The only point which arises for my determination is:- Whether the impugned order dated 29.10.2013, is so illegal and arbitrary as to warrant interference by this Court? 5. Upon hearing both sides, it can be seen that the learned Civil Judge has refused to exercise the jurisdiction which he has in respect of the proceedings initiated in execution of a decree. 6. The decree of the trial Court dated 5.8.2008 has been modified by the First Appellate Court by its judgment and decree passed on 16.8.2010. As per modified decree, the judgment debtors are required, amongst others, to hand over peaceful possession of the suit portion to the plaintiffs/decree holders and also to keep the door at the stair case in question open so as to facilitate to decree holders ingress to and egress from the suit premises. Since vacant possession was not delivered, the decree holders initiated Execution Proceedings in which, the learned Civil Judge passed an order that for the prayer seeking intervention of the Court executing the remainder of the decree i.e delivery of the vacant possession of the suit portion, the decree holders would have to take steps to execute the decree and can approach the Court only after they have been obstructed from taking over the possession. 7. Such an order is absolutely illegal and perverse and even arbitrary as it does not take into account the failure of the judgment debtors to perform the obligation imposed upon them in the modified judgment and decree dated 16.8.2010 on the one hand and encourages a trend, trend of decree holders trying their hand at use of force by themselves in executing a decree, a course having no sanctity of law, on the other. If the judgment debtors have not complied with the directions given in the decree, decree holders are not supposed to take law in their own hands and go on taking possession from the Judgment debtors in a forcible manner. If the judgment debtors have not complied with the directions given in the decree, decree holders are not supposed to take law in their own hands and go on taking possession from the Judgment debtors in a forcible manner. Cocreive method to execute a decree has to be adopted against those judgment debtors who do not comply with directions given to them in the decree and as is known to law, the only machinery clothed with the power of use of force to execute a decree is the executing Court or the authority on which such powers are conferred expressly by law. A decree holder, being a private person, does not have these powers and if he exercises them, he would be making himself liable for civil or criminal or both the actions. Therefore, the decree holders would have to approach the Court of law for getting such a direction executed through the machinery of the Court. 8. Thus, by refusing to entertain the execution application on the ground that the decree holders should first make an attempt to obtain the possession, learned Civil Judge has created a possibility of law-breaking by the decree holders, which cannot be countenanced. Order is absolutely perverse and against the well-known canons of law. It cannot be sustained even for a minute. 9. In the circumstances, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. Matter is remanded back to the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Panaji for deciding the execution application in accordance with law. Application shall be disposed of within two months from the date of the receipt of the order of this Court. Parties to appear before the Executing Court on 12.6.2014 at 10.00a.m. Point is answered accordingly. 10. Writ Petition is allowed in the above terms. 11. Rule is made absolute in these terms. No order as to costs.