Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. : 1. This first miscellaneous appeal is directed against an order being 25 dated 9th September, 2016 passed by the Learned Judge, VIIth Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Misc. Case No. 1793 of 2015 arising out of Title Execution Case No. 12 of 2015 at the instance of the judgment debtor/appellant. 2. The judgment debtor/appellant suffered from an eviction decree passed by court of competent jurisdiction in a suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff/decree holder/respondent. Challenging the said eviction decree, a first appeal was filed before this Court by the defendant/appellant. Conditional order of stay of further proceeding of the execution case was passed by this Court in the said first appeal on 26th April, 2014. Subsequently, the said appeal was dismissed for default on 6th February, 2015. 3. It is only thereafter, on or about 24th February, 2015, an execution case was filed by the decree holder/respondent for executing the said decree through court. Writ of possession was issued by the learned executing court. The Bailiff went to execute the said writ of possession on 5th May, 2015 at 3 P.M. However, possession could not be recovered from the judgment debtor/appellant by the Bailiff due to resistance offered by the judgment-debtor. The writ of possession was returned with a note that the execution could not be satisfied due to the resistance offered by the judgment debtor. Thereafter on 2nd June, 2015, an application was filed by the decree holder/respondent for police help. On such an application, police help was granted by the learned executing court for recovering the possession of the suit property from the judgment debtor and for delivering the same to the decree holder by the Bailiff. 4. The legality of the said order is under challenge in this appeal. 5. We do not find any apparent illegality in the said order. That apart, we are informed that the eviction decree has already been executed by police help and the possession has been recovered by the judgment debtor and khas possession of the suit premises has been given to the decree holder. 6. In these set facts, we do not find any reasonableness in admitting this appeal. As a matter of fact, we do not find any illegality in the order impugned. 7. Accordingly, we decline to admit this appeal. 8. The appeal is, thus, dismissed. 9. 6. In these set facts, we do not find any reasonableness in admitting this appeal. As a matter of fact, we do not find any illegality in the order impugned. 7. Accordingly, we decline to admit this appeal. 8. The appeal is, thus, dismissed. 9. Since the appeal is disposed of in the manner as aforesaid, no further order need be passed on the stay application. 10. The application for stay being CAN 9825 of 2016 is thus, deemed to be disposed of. 11. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the Learned advocates for the parties immediately.