1. Suit for perpetual and mandatory injunction regarding a passage — Decree granted — Subsequent obstruction created — Execution proceedings under Order XXI, Rule 32, CPC. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 1866
1997(2) Supreme 700
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Jai Dayal & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Krishan Lal Garg & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2583 of 1980
Decided on 6-11-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants No. 2 - 5 : Mr. Rani Chhabra, Advocate (N.P.)
For the Appellant No. 1 : Mr. D. Goburdhan, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Maheshwari, Advocate.
Important Points
Once a decree for perpetual and mandatory injunction becomes final, the judgment-debtor must comply. Re-adjudicating underlying rights (e.g., under the Easements Act) during execution is impermissible; non-compliance constitutes continuing disobedience subject to penal consequences under Order XXI, Rule 32 of the CPC.
Subject
Execution of Decree - Enforcement of Injunction
Act Referred
Headnote
Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Order 21, Rule 32-Decree for perpetual injunction and mandatory injunction-Execution-Mandatory injunction was to remove the obstruction and perpetual injunction restrained respondents from blocking the passage of appellants-Shop constructed which was an obstruction to the passage in question-View of High Court that rights of parties were required to be adjudicated under Section 22 of the Easements Act was erroneous-Decree which became final was required to be obeyed and obstruction in what so ever form was liable to be removed. (Paras 4 & 8)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether execution of a final injunction decree requires fresh adjudication of easementary rights under Section 22 of the Easements Act. (Para 3 )
3. Final decrees of injunction must be obeyed; subsequent obstructions constitute continuing disobedience and cannot be circumvented by re-litigating rights. (Para 6 , 8 )
4. Final injunction decrees are binding; non-compliance entails penal consequences under Order XXI, Rule 32, CPC, regardless of subsequent claims under the Easements Act. (Para 6 , 8 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court judgment set aside — Trial Court and appellate court orders restored. (Para 8 )
6. Does a final decree for injunction require a new inquiry into easementary rights under Section 22 of the Easements Act during execution?
No. Section 22 of the Easements Act applies only when the issue arises for the first time. Once a decree for perpetual and mandatory injunction becomes final, the judgment-debtor must obey it regardless of subsequent claims. (Para 6 , 8 )
7. What are the consequences of disobeying a final decree for perpetual and mandatory injunction?
Disobedience is a continuing offense that allows for execution proceedings under Order XXI, Rule 32, CPC, including attachment of property and detention of the judgment-debtor in civil prison. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
8. Can a judgment-debtor avoid an injunction decree by claiming the obstruction was created on property not part of the original suit?
No. A judgment-debtor cannot circumvent a final decree by clubbing the subject matter with adjacent property to force a fresh adjudication of rights in a second suit. (Para 8 )
ORDER
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, made on 9.4.1980 in Execution Second Appeal No. 789 of 1969.
2. The admitted facts are that the appellant had filed Suit No. 1023/61 against the respondent for perpetual injunction and also for mandatory injunction restraining him from blocking passage of 5 ft. between the house of the appellant and that of respondents and for removal of the obstruction. It was decreed by the trial Court on March 30, 1964 which was confirmed by the appellate Court on December 10, 1964. Thus, the decree of mandatory injunction to remove the obstruction and perpetual injunction restraining the respondent from blocking the passage of the appellants through the "QOADEMLP area" of the land shown in the decree of the trial Court. When the appellants had filed an application for execution under Order 21, Rule 32, CPC in Execution Case No. 2903/65, the respondent had removed the obstruction and consequently, the execution case was struck out on February 25, 1966 on the finding that the passage had been cleared and obstruction was removed. That was also upheld by the appellate Court by dismissing CA No. 65/66 on March 6, 1967.
3. It is now an admitted position that subsequently a shop was constructed which is an obstruction to the passage in question and it had completely blocked the passage. The appellant, therefore, filed again an execution application under Order XXI, Rule 32 in E.C. No. 42/1967. The executing Court had directed, over-ruling the objections of the respondents, to remove the obstruction completely and issued injunction not to disobey the mandatory injunction. It was issued by way of attachment of the property and detention of the respondents in civil prison if only the obstruction is not removed. On appeal, the Additional District Judge by his judgment dated March 10, 1969 confirmed the same. In the execution second appeal, the learned Single Judge reversed the decree and remitted the matter on the finding that under Section 22 of the Easements Act, it is required to be seen whether the obstruction has caused enjoyment of easementary right. Since that was not done, the courts below have committed error of law in directing removal of the obstruction and also the attachment of the properties and direction to keep the respondents in civil prison.
4. The question is : whether the view taken by the High Court is correct in law ? One of the defences taken by the respondent was that he had sold the property to third parties who had constructed the shop and thus it is not he who caused obstruction. That evidence was not accepted and it was found that the respondent had constructed the shop in the disputed area. Thereafter, it is recorded as a fact as under :
"The next question for decision in this appeal is whether the disputed construction has blocked the passage. In support of his contention on this point the decree holder has examined himself and has stated on oath that by disputed construction the passage at QOADEMLP shown in the decree has been completely blocked. The statement of the decree holder is corroborated by the report of the commission dated 13.5.1967. The report and map of the commission filed in the execution case show that the said passage has been completely blocked by the disputed construction and the place of dirty water of plaintiff s house has been stopped. The judgment debtors Babu Lal Garg has also admitted in cross-examination that by the disputed construction the said passage has been completely blocked."
5. The appellate Court, thereafter, found that though the decree on the earlier occasion was satisfied, since by his conduct he had constructed shop obstructing the free flow of passage, an application for execution under Order XXI, Rule 32, CPC could be laid to enforce the injunction granted in the suit in respect of the aforesaid area.
6. It is contended that the High Court has proceeded on the premise th
