Punitive consequences for disobedience of a decree for injunction can only be addressed through contempt of court proceedings.

Petitioners were plaintiffs in a suit for permanent injunction. Suit was decreed ex parte. On the allegation that defendants violated the decree, petitioners took out execution proceedings for taking punitive action against defendants. Learned Munsiff, in execution, found that defendants are guilty of violation of injunction and ordered that one of the defendants (2nd defendant) be detained in civil prison for 30 days. It was further ordered that properties of defendants be attached for recovery of value )f the loss sustained by plaintiffs on account of violation of injunction (together with cost )f proceedings) as compensation. The said order was challenged by respondents in appeal before District Court. Appeal was allowed and the order of Munsiff was set aside, fence, this C.R.P. by the plaintiffs/ decree-holders.

2. The decree for injunction restrains defendants from taking yield or cutting res from the decree scheduled property or changing its shape or erecting any structure thereon or committing acts of waste etc. On 26-7-1975, execution petition was filed by the decree-holders (petitioners in this revision) complaining that defendants wilfully disobeyed the order of injunction by plucking coconuts and erecting new structures. Plaintiffs prayed for punitive action to be taken against defendants.

3. In the objections filed by defendants they submitted, inter alia, that it was due to some bona fide mistake regarding identity of property that coconuts happened to be plucked therefrom etc. A commissioner appointed by execution court visited the decree schedule property on 7-9-1975 and reported to the court that seasonal crops have been raised in the property.

4. Execution court found, on evidence, that defendants wilfully disobeyed the injunction. The court ordered like this: "In the result, under Order 39 Rule 2(a) of the Code, it is hereby ordered that the properties of the defendants will be attached and proceeded against under sub rule (2) for recovery of the value of the cocoanuts and cudjans amounting to Rs.40/- and the entire cost of the proceedings in this case as compensation by the plaintiffs. It is further ordered that the 2nd defendant will be detained in the civil prison for thirty days. The 3rd defendant, who is the wife of the 2nd defendant, was in all probability acting under the direction of her husband and so I do not think it necessary to send her to prison this time".

5. Learned District Judge, on the other hand, found that there was no wilful disobedience of the decree till 7-9-1975 (date of visit by commissioner advocate ). He also found that no satisfactory and cogent evidence has been adduced to prove that after 7-9-1975 defendants continued to take yield from plaint schedule property etc. District Judge, however, observed thus: "It is well settled that the execution court cannot enforce a decree for permanent injunction by the detention of the judgment debtors in civil prison or by the attachment of their property" and further observed that "in order to justify the execution court to order detention of the judgment debtors in civil prison as a punitive measure for disobedience of a decree for injunction, it must be proved that the failure on the part of the judgment debtors to obey the decree was wilful". District court, however, excused the defendants for what they did before 7-9-1975 and noted that defendants have, since the said date, been abiding by the terms of injunction.

6. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that District Court committed a grave error in interfering with the order passed by execution court and also by denying the decree-holder damages for the acts of misfeasance committed by defendants in violation of decree.

7. Both the courts below proceeded on a wrong assumption that execution court has power to punish the judgment debtor who disobeyed the directions in the decree. Execution court held an erroneous view that it has power by virtue of Order 39 Rule 2(a ) of the C