A possession inquiry must precede further execution proceedings when delivery is disputed.

The petitioner, an opposite party in proceedings seeking police assistance for execution of a decree, challenged the Civil Judge’s order dated 2 December 2019 dismissing his objection in MJC 75/2018, arising out of PMC 33/1991

He contended, among other things, that the execution was time-barred, that no valid decree had been drawn up, and that the proceedings for police assistance were connected with a pending application to restore an ex parte order

The decree-holder maintained that possession had already been delivered by the court bailiff in the presence of police, a claim disputed by the petitioner, who asserted that he remained in possession

1. Whether the petitioner’s objections to the maintainability and validity of the execution proceedings required determination in the revision, given the dispute over who was in possession of the property

2. Whether an inquiry should be conducted to establish possession before the execution proceedings were taken further

The Court noted that the earlier orders in PMC 33/1991 and the dismissal of the petitioner’s application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure had attained finality

It also observed that an objection based on limitation could be considered if the decree-holder showed that time was excluded under the Limitation Act, but did not decide that question

The petitioner invoked Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC in connection with restoration proceedings; the Court did not determine the merits of that application or lay down a further rule concerning those provisions

No judicial precedents were cited or applied.

Because delivery of possession was disputed, the Court considered it necessary to ascertain who was actually in possession before addressing the petitioner’s objections concerning limitation and the decree’s validity

It therefore directed Joint Special Officers to inspect the property, after notice to both parties, arrange for its identification by a Government Amin, take photographs, and report to the Executing Court

The Court made the subsequent course of the proceedings depend on the Executing Court’s finding on possession

If the petitioner/judgment-debtor was not in possession, the matter was not to proceed further; if he remained in possession, PMC 33/1991 was to be reopened and necessary orders made after hearing both parties

The costs awarded by the order dated 2 December 2019 were set aside, and the petitioner was directed to pay the Special Officers’ remuneration and incidental expenses