The executing Court has the power to enforce the decree for injunction and ensure its obedience, even for a decree for prohibitory injunction. The direction to keep in abeyance the execution proceedings does not revive on the institution of a fresh suit. It is important to obey decrees and orders passed by the Courts and ensure their effective implementation and execution.

ORDER :- The questions of law arising for consideration in these revisions are : (1) whether the Court can invoke Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to enforce the decree for injunction and to pass an order directing delivery of the property to the decree holder from the judgment debtor who forcibly evicted the decree holder violating the decree : and (2) when a suit is withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action, whether an order passed under Rule 29 of Order XXI staying the execution of the decree, would revive on filing the fresh suit ?

2. The facts necessary for disposal of these revisions are the following. O.S. No. 853 of 1968, on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Kozhikode was filed by A. P. Damodaran Namboodiri against his brother Krishnan Namboodiri and the wife and children of Krishnan Namboodiri, for a declaration that the properties purchased as per Ext. A2 document dated 31-3-1933 in the name of Krishnan Namboodiri were acquired benami for the plaintiff Damodaran Namboodiri. There was also a prayer for consequential injunction restraining the defendants from entering into the plaint schedule properties. The suit was decreed on 23-12-1971. the defendants challenged that judgment and decree in A.S. No. 44 of 1972, before the District Court, Kozhikode, but the appeal was dismissed on 4-12-1976.

3. E.P. No. 250 of 1981 was filed by the decree holder in O.S. No. 853 of 1968 under Order XXI, Rule 32 for taking action against the judgment-debtors for violation of injunction. That Execution Petition was dismissed on the ground that the first judgment-debtor had obtained purchase certificate in his favour, issued by the Land Tribunal in O.A. No. 84 of 1980. The order in E.P. No. 250 of 1981 was set aside by this Court in C.R.P. No. 2391 of 1983 and the matter was remanded to the executing Court. Pending C.R.P. No. 2391 of 1983, the decree-holder died and his son was impleaded as the legal representative. The executing Court, after remand, dismissed the Execution Petition on the ground that the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act came into force after the decree and the decree-holder is not entitled to the reliefs in the Execution Petition in view of the subsequent legislation. Again, the decree-holder had to approach this Court in C.R.P. No. 1594 of 1989 challenging the order dismissing the Execution Petition.

4. Meanwhile, proceedings before the Land Tribunal were going on, after the decree in O.S. No. 853 of 1968. O.A. No. 83 of 1980 was filed by the plaintiff and O.A. No. 84 of 1980 was filed by the first defendant judgment-debtor, for purchase of the property in question under Section 72-B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The Land Tribunal allowed the application filed by the judgment-debtor (O.A. No. 84 of 1980) and dismissed the application filed by the decree holder (O.A. No. 83 of 1980). Challenging those orders of the Land Tribunal, A.A. Nos. 182 of 1983 and 183 of 1983 were filed before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority dismissed both the appeals. Two Civil Revision Petitions were filed before this Court under Section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act as C.R.P. Nos. 1043 of 1988 and 1044 of 1988.

5. The Civil Revision Petition filed by the decree-holder challenging the order in the Execution Petition viz. C.R.P. No. 1594 of 1989 and the two revisions arising out of the proceedings under the Land Reforms Act, viz., C.R.P. Nos. 1043 of 1988 and 1044 of 1988, were disposed of by this Court by a common order dated 18-10-1994. All the three revisions were allowed. The judgments of the Appellate Authority and orders of the Land Tribunal were set aside and the cases were remanded to the Land Tribunal. The order of the executing Court which was impugned in C.R.P. No. 1594 of 1989 was also set aside and the case was remanded to the executing Court for fresh disposal. This Court held in C.R.P. No. 1594 of 1989 that the Benami Transactions Prohibit