Supreme Court: Imprisonment of Judgment Debtor Requires Proof of Wilful Disobedience

In a significant ruling on January 17, 2025, the Supreme Court of India held that imprisonment of a judgment debtor for violating a decree is an extreme measure that courts must use cautiously. Before ordering imprisonment, courts must ensure that the judgment debtor had an opportunity to comply and wilfully disobeyed the decree.

The decision in Bhudev Mallick Alias Bhudeb Mallick & Anr. v. Ranajit Ghoshal & Ors. reaffirms the principle that civil imprisonment should be a last resort in execution proceedings and must be supported by clear evidence of wilful non-compliance.

Facts of the Case

The dispute arose from a Title Suit No. 25 of 1965, where the predecessor of the decree-holders (respondents) obtained a permanent injunction decree against the judgment debtors (appellants). The decree restrained the judgment debtors from interfering with the decree-holders’ possession of a landed property in Hooghly, West Bengal.

Chronology of Events:

1. June 26, 1976: The Subordinate Judge, Hooghly, decreed the suit, declaring the decree-holders’ title and possession over the suit property and granting a permanent injunction against the judgment debtors.
2. June 10, 1980: The judgment debtors’ appeal was disposed of, but they continued to dispute possession.
3. 2017: After 40 years, the decree-holders filed an execution petition (Title Execution Case No. 1 of 2017), alleging that the judgment debtors had wilfully violated the permanent injunction decree.
4. September 4, 2019: The Executing Court (Civil Judge, Arambagh) ordered the arrest and civil detention of the judgment debtors for 30 days, along with attachment of their property, citing their wilful disobedience of the decree.
5. September 23, 2019: The Calcutta High Court dismissed the revision appeal, affirming the Executing Court’s decision.
6. 2025: The judgment debtors appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s ruling.

Legal Issues Before the Supreme Court

1. Can a decree-holder seek imprisonment of a judgment debtor for violating a permanent injunction decree?
2. What is the threshold for determining whether a judgment debtor has wilfully disobeyed a decree?
3. Did the Executing Court follow due process before ordering imprisonment and property attachment?

Arguments Presented

Appellants’ Contentions (Judgment Debtors)

• The execution petition was filed 40 years after the original decree, making it time-barred.
• The decree-holders failed to provide clear evidence that the appellants had interfered with possession.
• Order XXI Rule 32 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) requires proof of wilful disobedience before ordering imprisonment, which was not established.
• The High Court erred in affirming the Executing Court’s order without verifying whether procedural safeguards were followed.

Respondent’s Contentions (Decree-Holders)

• The permanent injunction decree was not time-barred, as Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 states that execution of a perpetual injunction decree is not subject to any limitation period.
• The judgment debtors repeatedly interfered with the decree-holders’ possession, violating the injunction.
• Order XXI Rule 32 CPC allows imprisonment for non-compliance with an injunction decree.
• The Executing Court had the discretion to enforce compliance through civil detention and property attachment.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Ruling

1. Imprisonment of Judgment Debtors is a Drastic Step

• The Court emphasized that civil imprisonment should only be ordered if there is clear evidence of wilful non-compliance.
• Under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC, imprisonment is not automatic and requires a finding of deliberate disobedience.
• Cited Jai Dayal v. Krishan Lal Garg, (1996) 11 SCC 588, which held that failure to comply with an injunction decree is a continuing disobedience but must be established with evidence.

2. No Proof of Wilful Disobedience by Judgment Debtors

• The decree-holders did not provide clear evidence that the judgment debtors had violated the decree.
• The Executing Court’s order was based only on allegations, without conducting a proper inquiry into the claims of interference.
• The Court cited Samee Khan v. Bindu Khan, (1998) 4 SCC 125, which ruled that a decree-holder must demonstrate wilful defiance before seeking imprisonment.

3. Procedural Violations in the Execution Process

• Order XXI Rule 11A CPC requires an application for arrest to be supported by an affidavit stating specific grounds for detention, which was missing in this case.
• The Supreme Court criticized the High Court’s failure to examine procedural lapses, stating that judicial discretion should have been exercised cautiously given the severe consequences of imprisonment.

4. Execution of Permanent Injunction Decree is Not Time-Barred

• The Court affirmed that under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963, there is no limitation period for executing a perpetual injunction decree.
• Cited Benedito Dias v. Armando Fernandes, (2017) 4 AIR Bom R 381, which held that a decree-holder can seek execution whenever the decree is violated.

Conclusion and Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Executing Court’s order directing imprisonment and property attachment, holding that:

1. Imprisonment of a judgment debtor is an extreme measure and should only be ordered when there is clear evidence of wilful disobedience.
2. The decree-holders failed to establish non-compliance with the injunction decree, making the Executing Court’s order legally unsustainable.
3. Execution of a permanent injunction decree is not time-barred, but its enforcement must follow due process.
4. The High Court erred in dismissing the appeal without assessing procedural lapses, particularly the failure to conduct a proper inquiry into the allegations.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

• Reinforces that civil imprisonment should be a last resort in execution proceedings.

• Affirms that permanent injunction decrees can be enforced at any time.

• Ensures procedural fairness before depriving a judgment debtor of liberty or property.

This ruling sets a crucial precedent for the execution of injunction decrees, ensuring that courts exercise caution before ordering imprisonment or property attachment.

Stay informed with insights that matter. Follow us for more updates on key legal developments.