1. Whether the decree-holder gave the possession of the land to the judgement debtors, as alleged ?

2. Relief.

Both the parties were allowed to lead evidence in support of their stand and the executing Court after going through the record, came to the conclusion that the judgement-debtors took the possession forcibly from the decree-holder. The allegation of the judgement-debtors that they had agreed to forego their amount from Bagicha Singh and in turn the latter had handed over the possession of the suit land to them voluntarily, was found to be false. While granting the relief, it was objected on behalf of the judgement-debtors that the decree cannot be enforced by putting them in civil prison. In support of this argument, reliance was placed upon the provisions of Sections 51 and 58 of the Code. It was urged that Section 58 dues not relate to the execution of the injunction decree, and therefore, no order for detention could be passed against the judgement-debtors. The executing Court did not accept this contention of the judgement-debtors and passed the impugned order under Order 21 Rule 32(1) of the Code.

3. The learned counsel for the judgement-debtors has vehemently