1. Petition under Article 227 of Constitution against order under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC for violation of permanent injunction decree. (Para 1 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(HP) 608
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
ROMESH VERMA, J.
Jyoti Parkash – Petitioner
Versus
Sh. Jaswant Singh – Respondent
CMPMO No. 251 of 2026
Decided On : 27-07-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. S.D. Gill, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Raditya Katoch, Advocate.
For the Petitioner:Mr. S.D. Gill, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Raditya Katoch, Advocate.
A fresh application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC for violation of an injunction decree is maintainable on a new cause of action, even if an earlier application was dismissed, and the High Court under Article 227 cannot interfere with findings of fact unless perverse.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 21 Rule 32 - Enforcement of decree of injunction - Civil imprisonment and attachment of property - Decree-holder must plead and prove disobedience - Fresh cause of action arises when new violation occurs after earlier application dismissed - Demarcation report can be relied upon if not challenged - Court has power to detain judgment-debtor in civil imprisonment and attach property for violation of injunction decree. (Paras 15-27)
(B) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Scope of supervisory jurisdiction - High Court cannot interfere with findings of fact recorded by subordinate court or tribunal unless there is grave dereliction of duty, flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice, or perversity - Power is not appellate in nature - Limited to ensure that inferior courts function within limits of authority. (Paras 28-31)
(C) Principle of binding nature of decrees - Once a decree of injunction is passed and affirmed in appeal, it is binding on parties - Judgment-debtor cannot be permitted to violate the decree - Courts must maintain majesty of law by enforcing their orders strictly. (Para 28)
Facts of the case:
The decree-holder filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the judgment-debtor (JD) which was decreed on 1st November 2008, restraining JD from interfering, encroaching upon, or taking forcible possession of the suit land. The decree was affirmed in first appeal and attained finality. Earlier, the decree-holder filed an application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC in 2010 alleging violation, which was dismissed on 17th April 2015. Thereafter, in 2016, the decree-holder filed a fresh application under the same provision alleging that JD had started interfering and forcibly taken possession of part of the suit land on 10th May 2016. The trial court appointed a Local Commissioner (retired Tehsildar) who submitted a demarcation report (Ext. AW-2/A) dated 23rd May 2022, finding that JD had encroached by raising a house structure on part of the suit land. The report was not challenged. The trial court allowed the application, ordering JD to be sent to civil imprisonment for three months and attachment of his property. JD challenged this order under Article 227 before the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The High Court held that the decree-holder had established a fresh cause of action arising in 2016, distinct from the earlier application dismissed in 2015. The demarcation report of AW-2 Lachhman Dass, which was not challenged, proved that JD had encroached upon the suit land in violation of the decree. The trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence and passed a well-reasoned order. The High Court, while exercising its limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, found no infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. The court emphasised that orders of courts must be strictly followed and implemented; a judgment-debtor cannot be permitted to violate a decree that has attained finality.
Issues: 1. Whether the fresh application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC was maintainable despite the earlier dismissal of a similar application? 2. Whether the decree-holder had proved that the JD had violated the decree of injunction? 3. Whether the High Court could interfere with the findings of the trial court under Article 227?
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a fresh application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC is maintainable when a new cause of action arises after the dismissal of an earlier application, based on subsequent acts of disobedience. The decree-holder had adduced oral and documentary evidence, including an unchallenged demarcation report, to prove that the JD had encroached upon the suit land after the earlier application was dismissed. The trial court's findings of fact were based on evidence and not perverse. Under Article 227, the High Court cannot reappraise evidence or substitute its own findings; it can only interfere if the subordinate court has acted beyond its jurisdiction or committed a grave error. Here, no such error existed. Result : Petition dismissed. The impugned order of the trial court allowing the application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC was upheld. Pending applications also disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner contended failure to prove disobedience and reliance on earlier dismissal; respondent argued well-reasoned order and no interference under Article 227. (Para 12 , 13 )
3. Petition dismissed; impugned order upheld. (Para 33 , 34 )
4. What is the scope of High Court's power under Article 227 of the Constitution?
The power is limited to ensuring that subordinate courts function within their authority; it cannot interfere with findings of fact or correct errors of law. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 )
5. Can a fresh application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC be filed after dismissal of a previous application based on a new violation?
Yes, a fresh application can be filed if there is a new cause of action arising after the dismissal of the earlier application. (Para 26 , 32 )
6. What is the effect of an unchallenged demarcation report in proceedings under Order 21 Rule 32?
An unchallenged demarcation report can be relied upon by the court to establish violation of a decree. (Para 23 , 24 )
JUDGMENT :
Romesh Verma, J.
The instant petition arises out of the order dated 15.12.2025, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Palampur, in an application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC, filed by the decree-holder/respondent, Jaswant Singh, which came to be allowed.
2. The facts as emerge in the present case are that the present respondent/decree-holder filed a suit for permanent prohibition injunction in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Palampur, on 3rd April 2008. The said suit for injunction was filed by the decree-holder against the present petitioner/JD, Shri Jyoti Prakash. As per the averments, as made in the said suit bearing No. 53 of 2008, it was averred by the plaintiff/decree-holder that he is exclusive owner-in- possession of the land measuring 0-06-26 hectares, and that the defendant has got no right, title or interest over the same. It was the case of the plaintiff that though the defendant is recorded in the column of ownership in the revenue record as co-owner, but he is not in possession of any part of the suit land, and as such he has got no right, title or interest over the same. It was submitted by the decree-holder in the said suit that on 7th March 2008, defendant tried to start excavation work over the suit land, but the said attempt of the defendant was foiled by the plaintiff. That on 25th March 2008, again the defendant tried to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and threatened to take the forcible possession. As per the plaintiff/decree-holder, the defendant was requested several times to admit his claim, but he refused to do so.
3. The said suit was duly contested by the JD/present petitioner on various grounds.
4. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palampur, vide its judgment dated 1st November 2008, decreed the suit as filed by the decree-holder, and the present petitioner/JD was restrained from interfering, encroaching upon, or taking forcible possession of the suit land, bearing Khata No. 95 min, Khatauni No. 160, Khasra No. 101, land measuring 0-06-26 hectares, situated at Mohal and Mauja Tikker, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, along with costs of Rs. 1,000/-.
5. It has been fairly conceded by learned counsel for the parties that though the said judgment was assailed by the present petitioner/JD before the learned First Appellate Court, however, the said appeal came to be dismissed by the said Court. Thereafter, no further appeal was filed by the present petitioner/JD, by way of regular second appeal or by any other petition, meaning thereby that the said judgment has attained finality in the eyes of law.
6. Thereafter, the respondent/decree-holder, on 1st October 2010, filed an application under Order 21 Rule 32 of CPC, alleging disobedience and violation of the judgment, which was passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palampur, on 1st November 2008. The said application, under Order 21 Rule 32 of CPC, was duly resisted by the present petitioner. Vide order dated 17th April 2015, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palampur, dismissed the application filed by the decree-holder.
7. The decree-holder again, on 6th December 2016, filed a fresh application under Order 21 Rule 32 of CPC, alleging violation of the judgment and decree as passed by the learned trial court dated 1st November 2008. In the application, it has been stated that though the civil suit filed by the decree-holder came to be allowed by the learned trial court, whereby the present petitioner/JD was restrained from interfering, encroaching upon, or taking forcible possession of the suit land, however, the JD/present petitioner has started interfering in the suit land and trying to encroach over the same. As per the averments made in the application, on 10th May 2016, the JD/petitioner started digging the suit land, and finally on the same day, the JD has taken forcible possession of a part of the suit land. Therefore, it was prayed that the application filed by the decree-holder be
