IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1681 of 2008 VIJAY SINGH & ORS Versus RUBI KUMARI & ORS ----------- 2 1.10.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioners. In the opinion of this Court, the action of the Court below in only directing the decree holder to deposit the cost of deputation of Police/Magistrate is not the correct answer to the issue in hand regarding execution of decree. Normally, even if such cost is deposited, the Court will have to pass an order for deputation of police force for effecting the execution of the decree if so needed. Apparently, at this stage, no such report was there for deputation of police force especially when the decree is with regard to the following prayer in the suit “This is a suit for passing a decree for demarcation around the suit land detailed at the foot of the plaint and a S.K.P.C. be appointed and be directed to fix under on the demarcating line” and consequential decree “VADI KA VAAD PRATIVADIGAN KE VIRUDH VINA BYAY DECREE KIYA JATA HAI. VAADIGAN SIMANKAN EWAM TUNDA HETU SARVADA AAYUKTA VAHAL KARNE KE LIYE AAWASYAK VIDHIK KARYAVAHI KARE”. Obviously, for execution of aforesaid decree in relation to the relief prayed for, normally there would be not requirement of deputation of police force but then if 2 the Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner (S.K.P.C.) to be appointed for that purpose by the court as per the decree would be offered any resistance in his work by any person, the Court below on being submitted such report by S.K.P.C. will have a right to get its decree executed even by deputation of Police/Magistrate in order to enable the Pleader Commissioner to complete his job. That being so, this Court for the time being would not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly, this civil revision application with the aforementioned observation/clarification is hereby dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)