ORDER

1. Heard on the question of admission.

2. This petition has been preferred by the petitioners/judgment debtors against the order dated 09.01.2023 passed by the Court below whereby an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the CPC filed by the respondent/decree holder has been directed to be converted into an application under Order 21 Rule 32 of the CPC.

3. The record indicates that a judgment and decree was passed by First Civil Judge, Class-II, Alot, District Ratlam in Civil Suit No.27-A/2010 against present petitioners and others for permanent injunction. Alleging breach of the decree an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the CPC was filed by the respondent before the Court below. On such application notices were issued to the petitioners who appeared therein and raised objection as regards maintainability of the application under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the CPC on the ground that the said provision is applicable only in a pending civil suit and is not applicable in a case where the suit has been finally decided and has culminated in a decree.

4. The objection has been accepted by the Court below which has held that an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the CPC would not be maintainable but considering the averments as made in the application and the relief as sought for by the respondent therein, the application has been treated to be one under Order 21 Rule 32 of the CPC and has been directed to be registered as such separately and to be proceeded with in accordance with law.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the application had been found not maintainable by the Court below the same ought to have been dismissed and the Court had no power to convert the same into an execution proceedings under Order 21 Rule 32 of the CPC particularly when the application did not contain the requisite particulars as are required to be furnished under Order 21 Rule 1 of the CPC. Moreover the other defendants to the suit have not been impleaded as parties by the respondent and only the present petitioners have been impleaded. No notice of the proceedings were issued to the petitioners prior to directing for proceeding further in the execution matter. The Court had no power to direct for conversion of the proceedings when no such prayer had been made by the respondent. He has already filed another civil suit in respect of the same subject matter of the proceedings hence has no right to proceed with the instant case. Various judgments had been submitted by the petitioners before the Court below but they have been illegally declined to be acted upon. It is further submitted that when law prescribes a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, then the same has to be done in that manner itself and no other. The impugned order is hence wholly illegal and deserves to be set aside.

6. Reliance has been placed by him on the decisions of Padam Sen and another V/s. The State of U.P. AIR 1961 Supreme Court 218, Gauri Lal and others V/s. Smt. Sujham Devi AIR 1986 Himachal Pradesh 3, Messrs. Jharkhand Mines & Industries Ltd. And Another V/s. Nand Kishore Prasad and Others AIR 1969 Patna 228, Kanwar Singh Saini V/s. High Court of Delhi 2011 AIR SCW 5985, Food Corporation of India V/s. Sukha Deo Prasad AIR 2009 Supreme Court 2330, Niaz Mohammad and Others V/s. State of Haryana and Others AIR 1995 Supreme Court 308, Secretary Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Krishi Upaj Mandi, Neemuch V/s. Tarabai through Legal Representative Nahar Singh AIR OnLine 2022 MP 2194 and Rachhpal Singh V/s. Gurdarshan Singh AIR 1985 Punjab and Haryana 299 .

7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the record.

8. True it is that for execution of a decree for permanent injunction an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the CPC would not be maintainable and it is only an application under Order 21 Rule 32 of CPC for enforcement which would be maintainable. It is equally w