1 WP 2167.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2167 OF 2011 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. D.P.Palodkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. V.D.Sonawane, Advocate for the Respondent. .......................... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 14/06/2011 PER COURT : 1. The present petitioner is the decree holder. The Suit filed by the petitioner against the present respondent for perpetual injunction is decreed. The said decree is confirmed up to this Court in Second Appeal. 2. The present petitioner filed Regular Darkhast for execution of the said decree. In the said execution, the petitioner filed an application ( Exh. 10 ) for police aid contending that the Jawar crop was sown and she wants to cut the spice of Jawar and the present respondent as well as the judgment debtor are obstructing in the said activity. The said application is rejected by the 2 WP 2167.2011 executing court on two ( 2 ) counts; one, that the resort to Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be had only if there is no provision and the execution is provided under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure and secondly that no grave emergency exists for grant of police aid. The decree holder has assailed the said order in this petition. 3. Mr. Palodkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was an error on the part of the executing Court to hold that the application itself was not maintainable and that there was no grave emergency for grant of police aid. The application was perfectly maintainable, but the court below in a very casual manner has dealt with the same. The petitioner had brought on record the circumstances entitling the grant of police aid. 4. Per contra, Mr. V.D. Sonawane, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the decree holder can not be granted police aid as a matter of course. The decree holder has to prove the averments, existence of the fact and then only can pray for such a relief. The decree holder has only made vague allegations. The same were not substantiated and as such the Court has rightly rejected the application. 3 WP 2167.2011 5. The purpose for which the application for grant of police aid was given, would not survive by the passage of time. The decree holder can always move application for police aid if the exigency so arises. It was improper on the part of the executing court to observe that the remedy available to the decree holder would be only under Order Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the decree can be executed by keeping judgment debtor in prison or by attachment of his property. The decree holder is entitled to seek police aid in case the contingency so arises. However, the police aid can be awarded if the decree holder specifies the Court about the existence of the eventuality and the proof of obstruction. 6. The decree holder is entitled to make fresh application seeking police aid if the petitioner proves obstruction and the breach of the decree, so also the circumstances entitling police aid. 7. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed off with above observations and directions. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 2167.2011 4 WP 2167.2011