The Executing Court has the authority under Order XXI Rule 32(5) of the CPC to order the demolition of structures built in violation of a permanent injunction decree to ensure effective execution and prevent the decree from becoming a paper decree.

1. This revisional application is directed against Order No.95 dated January 28, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Alipurduar in Title Execution Case No. 04 of 2022 whereby the petitioner’s application seeking demolition of a structures/buildings over the land described in Schedule B(i) of the decree has been held by the learned Court to be misconceived while observing that “execution for recovery of possession is already underway”.

2. The petitioner had instituted Title Suit No. 112 of 2010 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Alipurduar praying inter alia for a decree for declaration and permanent injunction. Such suit was decreed ex parte on December 08, 2011 in the following terms :-

“That the suit be decreed ex parte. The plaintiff gets a decree of declaration whereby the plaintiff’s right, title and interest over the suit land is declared and his possession over the suit land is confirmed. Defendants are directed to be restrained from causing any disturbance in plaintiff’s possession of the suit property”.

3. The said decree was put in execution in the year 2022 since the opposite parties allegedly violated the order of injunction. In the said Title Execution Case No. 04 of 2022 the opposite parties made an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which was registered as Misc. Case No. 5 of 2025. Such Misc. case was ultimately dismissed by an order dated February 20, 2025.

4. Thereafter, the opposite parties applied under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code which was registered as Misc. Case No. 37 of 2025. The said Misc. case too ended in dismissal. The matter was carried in appeal being T.A. 14 of 2025 before the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Alipurduar. An order dated September 23, 2025 staying the execution case was passed in the said appeal.

5. Such order was challenged before this Court by filing C.O. 201 of 2025. Such C.O. was ultimately disposed of by an order dated November 26, 2025 thereby setting aside the order dated September 23, 2025 whereby the execution case was stayed. The execution case is thus proceeding.

6. In the said execution case, the petitioner filed an application seeking a direction interalia upon the District Magistrate and the Sub-Divisional Officer for demolition of buildings/structures allegedly situated at property mentioned in schedule B(1) of the plaint. By the order impugned, the said application has been found to be misconceived. Hence the revisional application.

7. Ms. Banik, the constituted Attorney for the petitioner (daughter of the petitioner) submits that the learned Trial Court has committed a jurisdictional error in not directing demolition of the buildings/structures standing on the B(1) schedule land.

8. Learned Advocate appearing for the opposite parties submits that the petitioner’s application is misconceived. It is submitted that the said application is in effect seeking execution of an order passed by this Court in WPA 2140 of 2025 directing demolition of the same property.

9. It is further submitted by Mr. Banerjee that none of the pleadings made in the revisional application is admitted by the opposite parties.

10. Ms. Banik, refutes such contention and submits that the order passed by this Court in WPA 2140 of 2025 was in the context of an unauthorized construction demolition whereof was sought by invoking writ jurisdiction while the prayer made before the learned Executing Court was (is) for demolition of structures/buildings in