The executing court has jurisdiction to enforce decrees, including injunctions, and can act against violations by judgment debtors.

Order :

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.)

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

“ 10.1. This this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the Order dated 31.07.2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Execution Court i.e. in the Execution Case No. 127-A/1993 in the interest of justice.

10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be directed to the Execution Court to execute the decree passed in Civil Suit No. 127-A/1993 strictly as per the mandate of law.

10.3. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the court below, for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

10.4. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioners in the interest of justice.”

2. The petitioner/judgment debtor has challenged the Order dated 31.07.2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned Execution Court i.e. IInd Civil Judge Class-I, Raipur Chhattisgarh in Execution Case No. 127– A/1993, whereby the application moved by the present petitioner under Order 26 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of C.P.C. has been rejected.

3. Brief facts of the present case are as under:-

A. The mother of respondents No.1 & 2/decree holders, namely Sushila Bai filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the petitioner and respondent No.3/State with regard to the suit property bearing survey number 608/2, ad-measuring 0.83 acre situated at village Tikrapara, Patwari Halka No. 70, Tehsil and District Raipur.

B. The suit was registered as a civil suit No.127-A/1993. The learned trial Court passed the judgment in the said civil suit on 11.01.1996 and decreed the suit. A decree of declaration of title and permanent injunction was passed in favour of the plaintiff. The learned trial Court found the plaintiff in possession of the suit property and also found that there was encroachment.

C. Later, on 22.08.2007, the legal hairs of Sushila Bhai, namely Sharad Daga and Pradeep Daga moved an application for execution, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner/judgment debtor has encroached over some part of the suit property and started raising construction.

D. During the course of execution proceedings, the learned Executing Court called a demarcation report from the Nayab Tahsildar, Bilaspur with regard to physical possession of the suit property. The Nayab Tahsildar submitted its report on 11.01.2024 wherein it is stated that the petitioner/judgment debtor has encroached over the suit property.

E. The petitioner filed an application/objection under Order 26 Rule 10 (2) read with Section 151 of the CPC for setting aside the memo/demarcation report dated 11.01.2024 and prayed to call the concerned Tehsildar for his examination.

F. Respondent No.1 & 2/decree holders filed their reply. The decree holders also moved an application for demarcation but the same was dismissed.

4. Mr. Shobhit Koshta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the learned Executing Court has issued a warrant of possession against the petitioner/judgment debtor, whereas there was no decree of possession in favour of the plaintiff. He would contend that the learned Executing Court ought to have allowed the application moved under Order 26 Rule 10 (2) of the CPC. In support thereof, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rameswar Dass Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (1996) 5 SCC 728 Reliance has also been placed on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mangilal Sharma, (1998) 2 SCC 510, wherein it is held that the declaratory decree merely declares the right of the decree-holder vis-a- vis the judgment debtor and does not in terms direct the judgment debtor to do or refrain from doing any particular act or thing.

5. On the other hand, Mr Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/decree holder would oppose the submissions made b