The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decree of permanent injunction is binding on all parties, and relief can be sought under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure for violations of the decree.

JUDGMENT

Biswajit Basu, J. - The instant revisional application under article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the Order No. 125 dated February 25, 2021 passed by the additional Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Tamluk, District- Purba Medinipur in Judicial Misc. Case No. 10 of 2014 arising out of Title Execution Case No. 05 of 2013.

2. The petitioners along with some other persons filed a suit being Title Suit No. 92 of 2000, subsequently re-numbered as Other Suit No. 18 of 2007 for declaration of their right, title and interest over the southern half of 25 decimal of land in plot no. 420 in Khatian No. 303 under Mouja Kumar ara and as a consequential relief thereof, the petitioners prayed for a decree of permanent injunction.

3. The father of the opposite party nos. 1 and 2, Rabindra Nath Pradhan was the defendant no. 5 in the said suit, who contested the said suit on a defence that suit plot no. 420 along with other non-suit plots belong to one Prasanna Kumar Ghosh, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and after his death, the suit plot was inherited by his two sons Kiran Chandra Ghosh and Manindra Nath Ghosh in equal shares. The said two brothers mutually partitioned the properties left by their father and by virtue of the said partition said Manindra nath Ghosh got the suit plot no. 420 along with other non-suit plots. The said Manindra Nath Ghosh, thereafter by a deed dated august 27, 1981 sold the 32 decimal of land to one Bansibadan Singh who later exchanged his said purchased lands by the deed dated February 02, 1993 with the defendant no. 5. The said defendant in the said suit further claimed that by a deed dated January 29, 1993 he purchased 6 decimal of land in the said suit plot no. 420.

4. The additional Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Tamluk, District- Purba Medinipur by the judgment and decree dated January 28, 2011 held that the defendant no. 5 has no right, title and interest over the suit property and decreed the said suit in the following form:-

'That the suit be and the same is decreed on contest against defendant No. 5 and ex parte against other defendants. Plaintiff do get a decree of declaration of title over the property as described in schedule 'Ka' of the plaint with further declaration that deed as specified in schedule 'Ga' of the plaint is void. Defendants are restrained by way of permanent injunction to disturb the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the property as described in the schedule 'Ka' of the plaint.'

5. The petitioner on December 19, 2013 put the said decree of permanent injunction into execution which gave rise to the connected Execution case before the additional Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Tamluk, District- Purba Medinipur. The petitioners in the said execution case alleged that the opposite parties violating the decree of injunction have forcefully entered into the suit property on april 22, 2012, on November 30, 2012, and on april 29, 2013 and reaped the paddy cultivated by the petitioners on the suit land, for which the petitioners lodged consecutive complaints with the Nanda Kumar Police Station. The further allegation of the petitioners is that the opposite parties have forcefully taken electricity line over the suit property. The petitioners in the said execution case filed an application under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure and prayed three-fold reliefs against the opposite parties alleging said violation of the said decree of permanent injunction viz. detention of the opposite parties in the Civil Prison, recovery of possession of the suit property and attachment of the properties described in the schedule appended to the said application.

6. The judgment debtor nos. 10 and 11, the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 herein only contested the said execution case. The said judgment-debtors filed written objection to the said application under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code to which the