Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation on Perpetual Injunction Decrees

The Supreme Court of India in Bhudev Mallick Alias Bhudeb Mallick & Anr. v. Ranajit Ghoshal & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 2248 of 2025) has reaffirmed the principle that a decree granting a perpetual injunction is not subject to limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963. This ruling clarifies the scope of enforceability of permanent injunctions and strengthens the rights of decree holders.

Facts of the Case

• In 1965, the predecessor-in-interest of the decree holders (respondents) filed Title Suit No. 25 of 1965 before the Subordinate Judge, Hooghly, seeking confirmation of possession and a permanent injunction against the appellants (judgment debtors).
• The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs on June 26, 1976, declaring their title and granting a permanent injunction against the defendants.
• The judgment debtors unsuccessfully challenged the decree in appeal, and the decree attained finality.
• In 2017, after 40 years, the decree holders initiated execution proceedings, alleging violations of the perpetual injunction decree.
• The executing court allowed the execution case, directing the arrest of the judgment debtors and attachment of their property.
• The High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the judgment debtors.
• The appellants (judgment debtors) then approached the Supreme Court.

Issues Before the Court

1. Whether a decree for perpetual injunction is subject to any limitation for execution.
2. Whether the execution proceedings initiated after 40 years were maintainable.
3. Whether the executing court correctly directed the arrest of the judgment debtors and attachment of their property.

Arguments by the Appellants (Judgment Debtors)

1. The execution petition was filed after 40 years and was time-barred under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
2. The decree holders failed to submit the required affidavit under Order XXI Rule 11-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), making the execution proceedings invalid.
3. The executing court’s order for arrest and detention violated procedural fairness, as there was no opportunity given to contest the execution.

Arguments by the Respondents (Decree Holders)

1. A decree for perpetual injunction is not subject to any period of limitation as per the proviso to Article 136 of the Limitation Act.
2. Violation of a permanent injunction is a continuing wrong, and execution can be sought whenever the decree is breached.
3. The appellants wilfully disobeyed the decree, justifying their arrest and property attachment under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC.

Reasoning of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that:

1. Perpetual Injunctions Are Not Subject to Limitation: The Court relied on Article 136 of the Limitation Act, which explicitly states that a decree granting a perpetual injunction is not subject to any period of limitation.
2. Continuing Disobedience Justifies Execution: The Court referred to its judgment in Jai Dayal & Ors. v. Krishan Lal Garg [(1996) 11 SCC 588], where it was held that a decree of permanent injunction remains enforceable as long as disobedience continues.
3. No Lapse of Rights Due to Delay: The Court cited Shri Benedito (Betty) Dias v. Armando Benedita Fernandes [(2017) 4 AIR Bom. R 381], reaffirming that delay in initiating execution does not defeat the decree holder’s rights.
4. Execution Mechanisms Are Available: The Court referred to Dilbagh Singh v. Harpal Singh (2020), which held that an execution petition for a perpetual injunction could include arrest and attachment as remedies under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC.
5. Jurisdictional Error by the High Court: The Court noted that the High Court erred in upholding the executing court’s order without properly examining whether procedural fairness was followed.

Conclusion and Impact of the Judgment

This ruling is a significant development in injunction law, reaffirming that a decree of perpetual injunction remains enforceable without limitation. It strengthens the position of decree holders by allowing them to seek execution whenever a violation occurs, ensuring judicial protection of their rights. However, the Supreme Court also cautioned against procedural lapses in execution proceedings, particularly regarding arrest and detention orders.

Key Takeaways

• A perpetual injunction decree is not time-barred under the Limitation Act, 1963.
• Execution can be sought at any time if the decree is violated.
• Courts must follow due process before issuing orders of arrest and property attachment.
• The ruling strengthens the rights of decree holders while emphasizing procedural safeguards.

This judgment provides clarity and reinforcement for execution proceedings related to perpetual injunctions, ensuring a balanced approach between decree holders’ rights and procedural fairness.