Enforcement of injunction decrees requires a wilful element, conscious violation, and mere proof of disobedience is not sufficient. The object of the rule is to enforce injunctions contained in the decrees and not to punish a party guilty of disobedience.

Judgment-debtors in an injunction decree are the revision petitioners. The decree was on 15-12-1965 in O.S. 115 of 1965 by the Munsiff, Haripad restraining them by permanent injunction from committing waste. On 12-10-1982 E.P. 110 of 1982 was filed alleging disobedience of injunction decree by cutting two jack trees and seeking action under O. 21 R. 32. They denied the acts but on the basis of evidence the Munsiff found them guilty of having wilfully violated the injunction decree. Judgment-debtors, husband and wife, on the wrong side of sixty were ordered to be detained in civil prison for 15 days each. That order is challenged in revision.

2. The finding that trees were cut is on the basis of appreciation of evidence which include report of the Commissioner and evidence of witnesses. Within the limited revisional jurisdiction under S. 115 there is no scope for interference with that finding and the learned counsel rightly desisted from making any such attempt. His attempt was only to convince me that the disobedience was not wilful and hence action is not justified.

3. The requirements for enforcing an injunction decree under O. 21 R. 32(1) by detention in civil prison or by attachment of property or by both are that the person has had an opportunity of obeying the decree and has wilfully failed to obey it. The rule applies to cases where a party is directed to do some act, as well as to cases where he is directed to abstain from doing an act. That is to say it applies to prohibitory as well as mandatory injunctions. The question whether a party had an opportunity of obeying the decree or not or whether he wilfully disobeyed it is a question of fact to be decided on the facts of each case. In a decree for prohibitory injunction the question of having had an opportunity of obeying the decree may not arise in as much terms as in a mandatory injunction because violation involves a positive act of disobeying the prohibition.

4. In either case mere proof of disobedience is not sufficient. It must also be proved to be wilful, whether it is failure or positive violation. A judgment-debtor cannot be confronted with the drastic action of depriving him of his personal liberty on the mere finding that the decree is violated or disobeyed. Only when there is wilful failure the court gets jurisdiction to take the extreme action. Mere inadvertent, casual or accidental omission or violation is not what is envisaged under O. 21 R. 32(1). Some mental element, though it may not be the same as mens rea, in the matter of disobedience must be there. The judgment-debtor can have a variety of explanation for what appears to be an apparent violation or disobedience. Violations for which there can be reasonable or plausible explanations of absence of wilful mind cannot be visited with the serious penal consequences. All the attendant circumstances coupled with the explanation of the judgment-debtor will have to enter the judicial mind before giving the verdict that the action or omission of the wrong doer is an invasion into the authority and dignity of the court, wilfully made. It is considered more akin to contempt of the authority of the court than as a private grievance of the decree-holder and the object is to bring the judgment-debtor to the authority of the court by making him obey the decree. That is because such decrees may not be capable of execution and enforcement by any other method and decrees and orders of courts will have to be enforced in the interest of Society and individuals also. These are well established positions for which authorities if necessary could be had in the decisions in Repayi Jose v. Chacko Lonappan 1959 Ker LT 275, Varkey v. Cheeran Narayanan 1968 Ker LT 711, Keeran v. Mohanan, 1980 Ker LT 32 and 1984 Ker LT (SN) 5, Case No. 10.

5. The next question is what exactly could be termed as willful failure to obey. No hard and fast guidelines could be given and no decision of any Indian Court was brought to my