Factual Background and Procedural History
The case originated from a protracted land dispute over agricultural land situated in Chak No.16 ML, Murabba No.10, Kila Nos.1 to 8, measuring approximately 8 bighas, in Tehsil Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan. The litigation began when late Chunnilal, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, instituted Civil Suit No.566/1995 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sri Ganganagar. He sought a declaration and permanent injunction to restrain the defendants—including the present petitioner, Naurang, son of Bhinraj—from interfering with his possession and to declare any document executed by Bhinraj, such as a partition or will, as void and ineffective.
By judgment and decree dated 12.11.1999, the trial court partly decreed the suit, granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs’ possession over the crops until the decision of allotment proceedings by the competent authority.
The defendants preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge No.1, Sri Ganganagar, which was allowed on 24.09.2003, thereby setting aside the trial court’s decree. However, in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.285/2003, decided on 13.12.2013, the Rajasthan High Court reversed the appellate judgment and restored the trial court’s decree dated 12.11.1999.
Nearly ten years later, the legal representatives of Chunnilal filed Civil Execution Case No.30/2023 to enforce the injunction decree. They alleged that the present petitioner had, in defiance of the decree, unlawfully taken possession of the suit land about two years before filing the execution petition with the assistance of anti-social elements.
In response, the petitioner filed objections dated 17.10.2023, contending that:
- The execution petition was defective for non-joinder of necessary parties;
- The decree was merely prohibitory and did not contemplate delivery of possession;
- The executing court lacked jurisdiction to expand the decree’s scope; and
- The decree-holders’ remedy, if any, lay in contempt proceedings, not execution.
The Civil Judge (Jr. Division) rejected these objections on 09.07.2025, leading to the filing of the present Civil Revision Petition No.145/2025 before the Rajasthan High Court.
Identification of Legal Issues
The core legal questions before the Court were:
- Whether an executing court can order restoration of possession in execution of a prohibitory injunction decree under Order XXI Rule 32(5) CPC when the judgment-debtor has unlawfully dispossessed the decree-holder.
- Whether the execution petition was maintainable despite alleged non-joinder of co-judgment debtors and absence of an explicit possession clause in the decree.
- Whether the appropriate remedy for violation of an injunction decree lies in contempt proceedings rather than execution.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Submissions:
- The petitioner argued that the decree dated 12.11.1999 merely restrained interference and did not confer any right to seek delivery of possession.
- It was submitted that the executing court’s jurisdiction is limited to the four corners of the decree, and hence it cannot enlarge its scope to include possession.
- The petitioner further asserted that non-joinder of other judgment-debtors rendered the execution petition defective.
- Lastly, it was contended that any breach of injunction could only be addressed through contempt proceedings, not through execution.
Respondents’ Submissions:
- The respondents contended that the decree had been rendered nugatory by the petitioner’s wilful and unlawful act of dispossession.
- Under Order XXI Rule 32(5) CPC, the executing court is empowered to take all necessary measures to secure compliance with an injunction decree, including restoration of possession.
- They argued that to deny execution would defeat the very object of the decree and allow the wrongdoer to profit from his own misconduct.
Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
Justice Farjand Ali commenced by reaffirming the settled principle that an executing court cannot travel beyond the decree but emphasized that this limitation does not curtail the court’s power to secure compliance with an injunction decree that has been willfully violated.
The Court interpreted Order XXI Rule 32(5) CPC, which permits the executing court to take “such measures as the court may deem fit” for enforcing a decree of injunction, as broad enough to include restoration of possession when the decree-holder has been unlawfully dispossessed after the decree.
Key observations include:
- The purpose of an injunction decree is to maintain possession and restrain interference. If the judgment-debtor violates this by forcibly taking possession, the court must ensure that its adjudication is not rendered meaningless.
- The High Court emphasized that “injunct” inherently means to restrain, and when defied, it equally authorizes the court “to expel” the intruder and restore the rightful possessor.
- The executing court’s duty extends to ensuring that its decree-holder reaps the benefit of adjudication and is not compelled to initiate fresh litigation.
- Merely resorting to contempt jurisdiction would not suffice, as contempt proceedings are punitive, not remedial. Execution proceedings, in contrast, enable substantive enforcement of the decree.
Justice Ali underscored the principle that the court’s process must not be reduced to an empty formality, and allowing a decree to be frustrated through illegal possession would erode faith in the rule of law.
Thus, the executing court was justified in invoking Order XXI Rule 32(5) CPC to restore possession and ensure that the decree was effectively implemented.
Final Conclusion and Holding
The Rajasthan High Court upheld the order of the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Sri Ganganagar, rejecting the petitioner’s objections. The Civil Revision Petition No.145/2025 was dismissed, with the Court holding that:
- A prohibitory injunction decree, if violated by unlawful dispossession, can be executed through restoration of possession under Order XXI Rule 32(5) CPC.
- The executing court acts within its jurisdiction when ensuring that the decree-holder’s possession is reinstated and preserved.
- The decree cannot be frustrated by the wrongful conduct of the judgment-debtor.
- Contempt proceedings are not the exclusive remedy; execution is an equally valid and effective mechanism for enforcing injunction decrees.
The Court thus reaffirmed the judiciary’s duty to protect the sanctity of its process and prevent decrees from becoming “illusory formalities.”
FAQs:
1. What is Order 21 Rule 32 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC)?
Order 21 Rule 32 CPC governs the execution of decrees for injunctions or specific performance. It empowers courts to enforce compliance and even restore possession if a party disobeys a prohibitory order.
2. Can an executing court order possession for a decree that only grants an injunction?
Yes. If a party violates an injunction by taking possession unlawfully, the executing court can restore possession under Order 21 Rule 32(5) CPC to uphold the decree’s spirit.
3. Is contempt of court the only remedy for breach of injunction?
No. While contempt proceedings punish the wrongdoer, execution proceedings under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC provide effective relief by restoring the decree-holder’s rights.
4. What happens if a judgment-debtor defies a court injunction?
If a party willfully violates an injunction, the court may enforce compliance through fines, detention, or measures such as restoration of possession to the rightful holder.
5. Can an injunction decree become unenforceable over time?
Not necessarily. Even if time has passed, courts can execute injunction decrees when violations occur later, provided the decree remains valid and enforceable in law.
Stay informed with insights that matter. Follow us for more updates on key legal developments.
Disclaimer
The content provided here is for general information only; it does not constitute legal advice. Reading them does not create a lawyer-client relationship, and Mahendra Bhavsar & Co. disclaims all liability for actions taken or omitted based on this content. Always obtain advice from qualified counsel for your specific circumstances. © Mahendra Bhavsar & Co.