JUDGMENT : DEBANGSU BASAK, J. 1. The petitioner complains that, the private respondent is acting in breach of a subsisting decree of the Civil Court. The Police are not assisting the petitioner in complying with the subsisting decree of the Civil Court. 2. Learned advocate appearing for the municipality submits that, the private respondent preferred an appeal from the decree which stands dismissed. 3. Learned advocate appearing for the private respondents submits that, this Court has no jurisdiction. The petitioner did not put the decree into execution. There subsists an alternative remedy. 4. The complaint is of Police inaction. A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable when, the petitioner complains of Police inaction. In such circumstances, the present writ petition is found to be maintainable and the Court to have jurisdiction to decide the issues raised. 5. There subsists a decree passed by the Civil Court. None of the parties to the Civil Court decree are entitled to act contrary thereto. The parties need not await an execution proceeding to comply. They have to adhere to the decree passed by the Civil Court. 6. In such circumstances, the Police will take expeditious measures so as to ensure that, the petitioner is able to act in terms of the decree, and construct a boundary wall. The police will maintain peace and tranquility at the locale. 7. List the writ petition on March 26, 2019 under the same heading for further consideration when the Officer-in-Charge of the local Police Station will submit a report as to the measures taken. 8. Urgent certified Website copy of this order, if applied, be supplied to the parties, upon compliance of all requisite formalities.