MATHURI AND ORS. vs STATE OF PUNJAB

The Supreme Court held that the execution of warrants for possession must be completed by the specified date, as per Order 21, Rule 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, rendering the warrants non-executable after expiration. The Court clarified that the intent to annoy under Section 441 IPC requires proof that causing annoyance was the primary aim of the entry, not merely a natural consequence. The appellants' resistance to the landlords was deemed unlawful assembly, leading to the upholding of their convictions under Sections 148, 304 Part II, and 326/149 IPC.