Form No. J.(2)

Item No.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE HEARD ON: 24.07.2025 DELIVERED ON: 24.07.2025 CORAM:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA C.O. 2571 of 2025 Abdul Chhatter Biswas & Others Vs.

Cheyenuddin Mondal & Others Appearance:-

Mr. Partha Pratim Roy, Ms. Poulami Chakraborty, Mr. Saikat Gayen …..For the Petitioners.

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)

1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the decree holders and is directed against an order no.29 dated 17.01.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), 3^rd Court at Krishnagar, Nadia in Title Execution Case No.9 of 2023.

2. By the order impugned, the execution case stood dismissed on contest upon holding that the same is not maintainable.

3. Mr. Roy, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction. The learned Trial Judge passed a decree declaring the title of the petitioners and restraining the opposite parties from creating any disturbances in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the schedule mentioned suit property and also from entering into the scheduled suit property as well as from ousting the plaintiffs therefrom.

4. Mr. Roy further submits that the said decree was put into execution and the learned Judge of the Executing Court dismissed the execution case. Mr. Roy submits that Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not contemplate actual violation of the decree for permanent injunction for the decree holder. He places reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jai Dayal & Ors. Vs. Krishan Lal Garg & Ors. reported at AIR 1997 SC 3765 in support of his contention that the object behind Order 21 Rule 32 is to see that the decree holder is not driven to another round of adjudication of the rights in the second suit to be settled afresh.

5. The petitioners herein filed a suit for permanent injunction being Title Suit No.259 of 2019. The said suit was decreed on contest by a judgment and decree dated April 21, 2023 thereby restraining the defendant/opposite parties herein by a decree of permanent injunction from creating any disturbances in the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the schedule mentioned suit property and also from entering into the scheduled suit property as well as from ousting the plaintiffs therefrom. Alleging that the opposite parties are violating the decree for permanent injunction, the petitioners have put the decree into execution giving rise to Title Execution Case No.9 of 2023.

6. Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides the mode in which a decree for permanent injunction is to be executed. For better appreciation of the issue involved in the civil revision application, the provisions of Order

21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure is extracted hereinafter:

“32. Decree for specific performance for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction (1) Where the party against whom a decree for the specific performance of a contract, or for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction, has been passed, has had an opportunity of obeying the decree and has wilfully failed to obey it, the decree may be enforced [in the case of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights by the attachment of his property or, in the case of a decree for the specific performance of a contract, or for an injunction] by his detention in the civil prison, or by the attachment of his property, or by both”.

7. On a bare reading of sub rule (1) of Rule 32 of Order 21, it is evident that where the party against whom a decree for an injunction has been placed, has had an opportunity of obeying the decree and has wilfully failed to obey it, the decree may be enforced in case of an injunction by his detention in the civil prison, or by the attachment of his propert