JUDGMENT - V.C. DAGA, J.:---This case afford a further illustration, if further illustrations are required, of the confusion of our law and how the decree-holder had to suffer at the hands of the Court. The Executing Court disposed of execution proceedings in a very casual and cursory manner, taking a thoroughly untenable and unjust view not palatable to any judicial mind.

BRIEF FACTS

2. The brief narration of facts will be useful for correct appreciation of the issues involved in this case.

3. The source of this revision petition is the order dated 28th June, 2000, passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ponda, in Execution Application No. 7/99/A, arising out of execution of decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 36/92, whereunder a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his relations, his servants and agents from interfering with the suit property bearing Survey No. 206/4, known as "DAIMODEM", situated at Bandora was passed.

4. It appears that the decree-holder, upon initiation of the execution proceedings against the judgment-debtor preferred an application under Order 21, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the "C.P.C." for short), for attachment and sale of the property of the judgment-debtor. It further appears that the decree-holder also brought to the notice of the Executing Court that in spite of the decree of permanent, injunction, the judgment-debtor trespassed into the suit property, which ultimately resulted in detention of the judgment-debtor in civil prison. He suffered civil imprisonment for 15 days. The said judgment-debtor again after release from civil prison, committed breach of the decree of permanent injunction with the help of his two sons, which appears to have compelled the decree-holder to seek further action against the judgment-debtor and his two sons, including action for detention of the judgment-debtor and his sons in civil prison. The Executing Court, after hearing the parties to the execution proceedings, dismissed the execution petition holding that the judgment-debtor cannot be detained in civil prison on second occasion as the relief is barred by constructive res judicata. The aforesaid order of the Executing Court, is the subject-matter of challenge in this revision.

ISSUES TO BE DECIDED

5. On the backdrop of the above facts and on the canvass of the order passed by the Executing Court, the following issues need consideration :---

(i) Whether the detention of the judgment-debtor in civil prison for having committed breach of the decree of permanent injunction tantamounts to satisfaction of the decree obtained by the decree-holder? and

(ii) Whether the Executing Court is helpless to implement decree even if judgment-debtor keeps on committing repeated and successive breaches thereof?"

FINDINGS

6. Having heard parties, in order to answer the questions involved in this revision petition, one has to turn to the relevant part of the provisions of Order 21, Rule 32 read with section 51 of the Civil Procedure Code which reads as under :---

"32. Decree for specific performance for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction.---(1) Where the party against whom a decree for the specific performance of a contract, or for restitution of conjugal rights, or 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 restitution of conjugal rights by the attachment of his property and, or in the case of a decree for the specific performance of a contract, or for an injunction by his detention in the civil prison, or by the attachment of his property, or by both."

7. A perusal of the aforesaid provision of the Civil Procedure Code would demonstrate that the decree of injunction can only be executed in the manner prescribed under Order 21, Rule 32. Order 21, Rule 32 read with section 51 of the Civil Procedure Code is meant to enable the party to enforce the decree

Click Here to Read the rest of this document