Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 774 (CAL)

Anup Kumar Das v. Shyamal Kanti Das

2015-09-15

DEBI PROSAD DEY, JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. 1. The instant first miscellaneous appeal is directed against an order passed by the learned Executing Court on the decree-holder’s application under Rule 208 of the Civil Rules and Orders read with Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Prayer for grant of police help was allowed by the impugned order. The said order is under challenge in this first miscellaneous appeal. 2. At the time of hearing of this appeal under the provision of Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a question is raised as to whether the impugned order is appealable before this Court or not. 3. In this connection, we have considered the application filed by the decree holder seeking police help. Though the said application was captioned under the provision of Rule 208 of the Civil Rules and Orders read with Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but if the substance of the said application is taken into consideration, then it goes without saying that in effect, police help was sought under Rule 208 of the Civil Rules and Orders for execution of the decree without seeking any adjudication with regard to the right of the parties to the said proceeding in the light of the provision contained in Order 21 Rule 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No doubt, an order which was passed in a proceeding under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure after adjudication of the dispute as contemplated under Order 21 Rule 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is a deemed decree under Order 21 Rule 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but the order of grant of police help under Rule 208 of the Civil Rules and Orders which is essentially different from the order granting police help under Order 21 Rule 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure, cannot be regarded as a deemed decree. Such an order, in our considered view, is not appealable before this Court. 4. Accordingly, we decline to entertain this appeal. The appeal thus stands rejected. 5. It is, however, made clear that this order will not preclude the appellants from seeking appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. 6. Such an order, in our considered view, is not appealable before this Court. 4. Accordingly, we decline to entertain this appeal. The appeal thus stands rejected. 5. It is, however, made clear that this order will not preclude the appellants from seeking appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. 6. On the prayer of the learned advocate-on-record of the appellants, leave is granted to him to take back the certified copy of the impugned order by supplying true photostat copy of the same from the concerned department. Re: CAN 1251 of 2015 (Stay) 7. In view of dismissal of the appeal in the manner as aforesaid, no further order need be passed on the interim application for stay. The said application being CAN 1251 of 2015 is thus deemed to be disposed of. 8. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as early as possible.