The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for stricter proof of dispossession and the limitations on the jurisdiction of the executing court in issuing warrants of possession for a decree of prohibitory injunction.

JUDGMENT

Raj Mohan Singh, J. - Petitioners have preferred this revision petition against the order dated 20.08.2018 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Sunam allowing the application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC for enforcement of decree against the petitioners for delivery of possession of the land in question.

2. Warrants of possession were issued vide the impugned order. Perusal of the record would show that a Civil Suit No. 43 dated 14.06.2008 was filed by the plaintiff/respondent for permanent injunction. It was averred by the respondent that the suit property was purchased by him along with his brother from Bhola Dass, Gurmail Dass and Nek Dass. The defendants have no concern with the suit property. Restraint was sought qua interference by the defendants in the suit property. The suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 14.02.2012. A decree for permanent injunction was passed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent restraining the defendants/petitioners from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and from dispossessing him from the suit property. The said judgment and decree was never assailed by the petitioners.

3. Thereafter another suit was filed by the respondent/decree holder and one M/s. Verma Trading Company for recovery and permanent injunction. Permanent injunction was sought qua alienation of the suit property. It could not be demonstrated as to how the petitioner could have alienated the property, when the respondent/decree holder had already claimed permanent injunction on the basis of his title based on sale deed from Bhola Dass, Gurmail Dass and Nek Dass.

4. Respondent/decree holder is running a commission agency. The suit for recovery and permanent injunction was dismissed by the trial Court. Appeal was dismissed by the lower Appellate Court and Regular Second Appeal is pending in the High Court. The sale deed on the basis of which the respondent had purchased the property from the original owners namely Bhola Dass, Gurmail Dass and Nek Dass could not be brought on record.

5. In the application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC fled by the respondent-decree holder, para No. 3 and 6 are necessary to be quoted herein:-

"3. That the J.Ds/respondents had formed a party against the D.H./applicant and they had threatened the applicant that they will interfere in the possession of the D.H./applicant over the land mentioned in the heading of the application and will dispossess the applicant and his brother Tarsem Lal from the said land, due to which the applicant filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents vide suit No. 43 of 14.06.2008, which was decreed with costs on 14.02.2012 and the respondents were restrained from interfering in the possession for the applicant and from dispossessing the applicant from the above said land mentioned in the heading of the application.

6. That the month of April, 2013 the respondents took possession of the land in question mentioned in the heading of the, application illegally and forcibly by taking the undue benefit of the weakness of the applicant. The respondents were restrained from interfering in the possession of the applicant and from dispossessing him from the land in question. The said decrees and judgments were well in the knowledge of the respondents and they were well in the knowledge of the respondents and they were bound to obey the same."

6. Perusal of the aforesaid paras would show that the decree holder had perceived threat perception of dispossession at the instance of the petitioners in para No. 3. In para No. 6 of the application, the decree holder alleged that in the month of April 2013, the petitioners had taken forcible possession of land in question from him.

7. Petitioners contested the application and brought to the notice of the Court in reply that prior to institution of suit for permanent injunction, respondent in order to get forcible possession over the suit land came to the spot along with weapon and FIR No. 86 dated