JUDGMENT The petitioners by filing this application under Article - 227 of the Constitution seek quashment of order dated 27.02.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rourkela in Execution Case No. 11 of 2003 rejecting their application for reissuance of warrant of delivery of possession of the suit land with a direction to bailiff to execute the said warrant effectively and if so necessary with the assistance of police. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. None appears on behalf of the opposite parties. I have gone through the order in question. 3. The petitioners as the plaintiffs had filed the suit i.e. Title Suit No. 08 of 1996 for declaration of their right, title, interest and for confirmation of possession in respect of the suit land with the alternative prayer for delivery of possession of the suit land or any portion thereof, if they are found to have been dispossessed. The suit stood decreed in part in favour of the petitioners (plaintiff). So as the Decree-Holders, the petitioners filed an application for execution of the said decree which was numbered as Execution Case No. 11 of 2003. The opposite parties (judgment debtors) did not enter appearance in the execution proceeding on being noticed. Be that as it may in the execution proceeding only on 30.08.2006, they had once filed an application nomenclatured as one under order 21 rule 106 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the exparte order along with the application for condonation of delay and thereafter remained all of. Upon the move of the petitioners (decree holders) writ of delivery of possession of the land decreed in favour of the petitioners was issued to the bailiff of the court on 30.03.2006. The bailiff went to the spot and found opposite parties (judgment debtors) creating disturbance. So he sought for the police help. The writ of delivery of possession was again issued for its execution in the field with police assistance. It is stated that on that occasion the bailiff went and asked the opposite parties (judgment debtors) to remove their goods from the suit house and when they removed some of those goods, the bailiff stating to have given the delivery of possession to the petitioners (decree holders) reported accordingly taking the signatures of the petitioners. It is stated that on that occasion the bailiff went and asked the opposite parties (judgment debtors) to remove their goods from the suit house and when they removed some of those goods, the bailiff stating to have given the delivery of possession to the petitioners (decree holders) reported accordingly taking the signatures of the petitioners. It is next alleged that soon after the bailiff returned, the opposite parties (judgment debtors) using muscle power remained in possession. So the petitioners again filed the application before the executing court to redress their said grievance in giving them the possession of the decreetal land. The executing court rejected the said petition solely on the ground that the delivery of possession of the decreetal property once having been given and the report to that effect having been submitted there cannot be issuance of the writ of delivery of possession to the bailiff again. The trial court thereby did accept the report of the bailiff. 4. The points which arise for consideration now are whether the executing court has the jurisdiction in the said execution case to direct delivery of possession afresh and if so whether in the facts and circumstances as narrated by the petitioners in their petition seeking issuance of delivery of possession, the executing court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested on it under law and has thus exercised the jurisdiction in the matter with material illegality or irregularity. 5. Code of Civil procedure contains various provisions as to when actual, joint or symbolical possession can be given. Possession referred to in sub-rule 1 and 2 of rule 35 order 21 is actual possession. If the immovable property of which the possession is directed to be delivered to the decree holder is in possession of the judgment debtor then actual possession is to be delivered to the decree holder; under sub-rule-1 of rule 35 of order -21. By issuance of writ of delivery of possession, the Court certainly directs that the decree-holder must be put in possession. It is the settled position of law that the decree has to be executed in full and the court must be satisfied that there has been actual physical delivery of possession. By issuance of writ of delivery of possession, the Court certainly directs that the decree-holder must be put in possession. It is the settled position of law that the decree has to be executed in full and the court must be satisfied that there has been actual physical delivery of possession. Once it is found that no actual possession has been given in accordance with the provisions of order -21 rule -35 of the Code, there cannot be any finality to the execution proceeding. It is only when the property is delivered to a decree holder in execution of the decree for possession, the decree stands satisfied in that regard. It is open to the decree holder to maintain an application for possession when he alleges that effective possession as per the decree was not given to him by the officer who was in-charge of the writ of delivery of possession and had been so directed. 6. In the present case, the complaint of the petitioners is that although bailiff was directed to give delivery possession of the suit property with police help in view of the last time experience, second time also, he went to the spot without any police assistance and then asked the opposite parties (judgment debtors) to remove some goods and thereafter when they removed some, the bailiff obtaining the signatures of the Decree- Holders on the warrant and without giving the actual delivery of possession of the suit property to the petitioners (Decree- Holders) submitted a report as regards the same. In essence, the complaint is that there has been no actual or physical delivery of possession and thus there has not been the effective execution. The delivery of possession in other wards is said to be an eye wash without delivery of the fruit of the decree to the holders. It is the settled law that notwithstanding the report of the bailiff, an objection is permissible to be raised either by the decree holder or the judgment debtor that the possession of the immovable property was not actually delivered and in the event, the court so finds that there is no legal, and effective delivery of possession on that occasion, it has the jurisdiction to issue writ of delivery of possession afresh. In view of the immediate complaint made by the petitioners (decree-holders), in this case even accepting the view of the executing court at best it can be said to be a case of symbolical delivery of possession which was not the direction to the bailiff and thus it is in breach of the order in the writ. Moreso, when that bailiff had sought for police assistance and therefore it had been so ordered, the bailiff has not cared to take that which itself raises eye brows at the very outset. Its only when the decree-holder deliberately accepts symbolical possession and does not repudiate then only he is not entitled to come forward later with a second execution application or for issuance of writ of delivery of possession again. But this does not appear to be the case here. The law is well-settled that when such prayer for reissuance of writ of delivery of possession comes for consideration, it is for the court to arrive at the satisfaction about its directions being complied with or not. The executing court is not to merely rely upon the report for that and instead to consider all other facts and circumstances and ultimately take a view in the cumulative. In that way the duty of the executing court is of utmost importance that it provides the real message to all as regards the decree of the court how has firmly stood in the field and that its not a paper decree and most importantly to see that the decree provides the fruits to its holders by sternly dealing with any illegal, diabolical or circuitous attempts to thwart its execution or subvert its course as it causes threat to the administration of justice and thereby adversely impacts the authority of the court tending to reduce the legal process to a mockery. In this case, the complaint has been made by the petitioners (decree holders) even before confirmation of the delivery of possession alleging that there has been no actual delivery of possession as per the writ issued to the bailiff of the court. In this case, the complaint has been made by the petitioners (decree holders) even before confirmation of the delivery of possession alleging that there has been no actual delivery of possession as per the writ issued to the bailiff of the court. Furthermore, the court having ordered for assistance of police in the matter, accepting the earlier version during when there had been the failure, the executing court has not been placed itself in a position to verify this aspect from them as how as per the report even without any such external assistance, the bailiff completed the exercise so smoothly as if he had the earlier information from confidential sources that this time the opposite parties would be fully cooperating in the matter as law abiding person and that they so scrupulously abided. In my considered view, the facts and circumstances being viewed cumulatively go to clearly expose that the execution of writ of delivery of possession in the case in hand is an eye wash adopted as a way to render the entire legal process futile and the executing court has failed in its duty. The executing court in the instant case ought not to have rejected the prayer holding the execution of the decree to be legal and effective merely giving the emphasis upon the report of the bailiff which is called in question by the petitioners (decree holders). It has to be kept in view that the decree-holder having once got the delivery of possession of property by way of execution of a decree, does not ordinarily in any way gain by again getting the writ issued shortly thereafter in the same fact situation. So in order to refuse the prayer, the executing court must arrive at a satisfaction that said move of the decree holder is mischievous, intentional in order to serve any other illegal goal beyond the purview of the decree. At the same time, the executing court is to see that the decree which has been so passed after long legal battle is just shown to have been executed instead of giving the delivery of the fruit of it to the decree-holder and that is to foil the entire exercise. This has not been so found by the executing court in this case. Therefore, this court finds that flagrant violation of justice has taken place by such order in the execution case. This has not been so found by the executing court in this case. Therefore, this court finds that flagrant violation of justice has taken place by such order in the execution case. The order in question thus is liable to be quashed in exercise of power under Article-227 of the Constitution. The application is accordingly allowed. The order in question is hereby quashed and the executing court is directed to issue the writ of delivery of possession of the decreetal immovable property to the petitioners afresh with police assistance so as to see that there is legal and effective execution of the decree in accordance with law within two months from the date of communication of the order or production of its certified copy whichever is earlier and report compliance to this Court within a week thereafter. Application allowed.