Order 21, Rule 32 (1) C. P. C. applies to mandatory injunctions and that a decretal order based on a consent memo is enforceable under Order 21, Rule 32 (1) C. P. C.

ANATHANARAYANA AYYAR, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a Petition to revise the order of the District Munsif, Nandyal, in E. p. No. 302 of 1959 in C. M. A. No. 27 of 1959 (Additional Sub-Court. Kurnool ).

( 2 ) THE relevant facts are as follows:-Abdul Lateef, the respondent filed O. S no. 66 of 1958 in the Court of the District Munsif, Nandyal Praying for a declaration that he was a Peish Imam and Muttawalli of a certain mosque and that he was entitled to exercise the rights of such office and for the issue of a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing him in exercising those rights. The plaintiff filed I. A. No. 320 of 1958 in the District Mun-sifs Court, Nandyal asking for a temporary injunction against the defendants. The learned District Munsif passed an order of temporary injunction on 22-4-1958. The eight defendants took the matter in appeal in C. M. A. No. 27 of 1959 in the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Kurnool in that Court, both parties filed a joint memo and accordingly, the learned Subordinate Judge passed an order as follows:-". . . . . THIS Court in pursuance of the said joint in allowing the appeal doth order and decree as follows r- 1. that the respondent (plaintiff) shall "undertake to perform the peish imam and muttavalli services in the suit mosque properly and regularly and shall have no objection to the appellants (defendants) offering prayers in the mosque without disturbing the peish imam and muttavalli services of the respondent (plaintiff ). 2. That the injunction order be and the same-is hereby varied to the above extent. "later, the eight defendants filed E. P. No 302 at 1959 in C. M. A. No. 27 of 1959 in the Court of the District Munsif, Nandyal under Order 21 Rule 32" Clause (1) C. P. C. alleging that the plaintiff had" not been performing his duties as Peish imam and muttavalli on a number of occasions as mentioned in the appellate decree and had thereby acted in contravention of the decretal order of the appellate Court. They (defendants) therefore, prayed for arrest of the judgment-debtor (Latif) and attachment of his immoveable properties. The learned District Munsif dismissed the petition holding as follows :-". . . . . . . It is rather difficult to understand how an order of injunction passed under Order 39 Rule 1 C. P. C. could be treated as a decree for injunction. If such an order is not a decree for injunction, Order 21 Rule 32 C. P. C. would obviously not apply. "seven of the eight defendants i. e. , all defendants except Defendant 4 have filed this petition to revise that order.

( 3 ) THE point for consideration is whether Order 21, Rule 32 (1) C. P. C applies to mandatory injunctions?

( 4 ) AT the outset, I have to state that no direct decision of this Court or any other High Court has been placed before me involving the same point. Order 21, Rule 32 (1) C. P. C. reads:"where the party against whom a decree. . . . . . . for an injunction, has been passed, has had an opportunity of obeying the decree and has wilfully failed to obey it, the decree may be enforced. . . . . . . . . . . . . . in the case of a decree. . . . . . . . . for an injunction by his detention in the civil prison, or by the attachment of his property, or by both. "order 21, Rule 32 (5) C. P. C. runs ;"where a decree. . . . . . . . for an injunction has not been obeyed, the Court may. . . . . . direct that the act required to be done may be done so far as practicable by the decree-holder. . . . . . . . . and upon the act being done the expenses incurred. . . . . . . . . . . may be recovered as if they were included in the decree. "

( 5 ) THE learned District Munsif relied on the decision in Chinnabba Chetty v. Chengalroya Chetty, 1949-2 Mad LJ 705 : (AIR 1950 Mad 237) wherein it was held that Order 21. Rule 32 (5) C. P. C. was intended to cover only mandatory injunctions and did not apply to prohibitory injunctions, preventing interference by defendants with plaintiffs rights. In the present case, E. P

Click Here to Read the rest of this document