ORDER

K. Harilal, J.

Whether the execution court is empowered under Order 21 Rule 32 to proceed against and punish contumacious Judgment debtors who have violated or disobeyed a decree for prohibitory injunction? In other words, whether the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1947 is a proper remedy against violation of a decree for prohibitory injunction? These are the basic questions that arise for consideration in this Revision.

2. This Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 03.01.2008 in E.P. No. 49/2006 in O.S. No. 15/2004 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kanjirappally, by virtue of which the Revision Petitioners have been directed to be detained in civil prison for a period of one month for the alleged violation of the decree in O.S. No. 15/2004. The impugned order was passed on an application under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. The Revision Petitioners are the Judgment debtors 2, 3 and 5 and respondents 1 and 2 are the decree holders in the above and execution petition.

4. As per the Judgment passed in the above suit, the Revision Petitioners are restrained from cutting open a new road through the plaint schedule properties and from widening item No. 3 road, doing anything that will cause damage to the plaint schedule properties and from committing any act of waste in the plaint schedule properties.

5. The averment in the EP is that pursuant to the Judgment and decree, on 26.11.2006 at 11 a.m. the Revision Petitioners herein and 4 others trespassed into decree schedule item No. 3 road, widened the same and also committed waste on the pathway by clearing the same and cutting plants cultivated therein. They sought for prosecution proceedings against the Revision Petitioners under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Revision Petitioners 1 to 3 filed an objection by contending that they have not violated the decree passed in the above case.

6. On the side of respondents, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exts. A1 to A5 were marked. DW1 to DW3 were examined on the side of the Revision Petitioners. The Commission Report and rough sketch were marked as Exts. C1 and C1(a) respectively. After analysing the evidence, the court below found that the Revision Petitioners had violated the decree and they have been ordered to be detained in civil prison for one month each for the violation of the decree. Hence this Revision Petition is filed challenging the impugned order mainly on three grounds. (1). The petition under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Civil Procedure Code is not maintainable for prosecuting the Judgment debtors for the violation or disobedience of a decree for injunction. If the violation or disobedience of a decree for injunction is sought to be visited with punitive consequences, the only remedy available in law to the decree holder is to initiate proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act,1947. (2). Even if the petition is maintainable, the court below went wrong in considering the scheme envisaged under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Civil Procedure Code in its correct perspective. The Judgment debtor who violates or disobeys the decree must be visited with detention in civil prison or by attachment of his property or by both. But the court below has not considered the possibility of attachment of property, though the decree holder has prayed for the same and produced details of defendants' property. (3). The standard of proof required to prove the act of violation or disobedience of a prohibitory decree is on a par with standard of proof required to prove guilt of an accused in criminal cases. Here, there is no independent corroborative evidence to support the evidence of decree holder.

7. First of all, I shall deal with the basic questions, challenging the maintainability of the petition under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Civil Procedure Code, from which the impugned order was passed and the competency and jurisdiction of the court which passed the impugned order. Let us exa