Execution of a decree for permanent injunction is not subject to any limitation period, allowing enforcement whenever there is a breach.

ORDER

This Misc. Petition, under Article 227 of Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following relief(s):

i) The Order dated 05.04.2025 passed in Execution Proceedings No. 11/2019 EXA may be quashed/set aside and the objections raised by the Petitioners regarding maintainability of execution proceedings may be allowed and the execution proceedings may be dismissed as not maintainable.

ii) To grant any other relief that this Hon’ble Court deem fit.

2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioners that by judgment and decree dated 22.12.1979, it was held that plaintiff – Ravishankar Mudgal is the owner of Khasra No.742/5 and the defendants should dismantle the construction which they have raised within a period of six months and a permanent injunction was also issued thereby restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff.

3. The decree was fully satisfied and accordingly, the execution proceedings were dropped on 20.12.2017. Thereafter, the respondent who is the son of plaintiff who had filed Civil No.113-A/1969 which was decreed by judgment and decree dated 22.12.1979 filed a suit for declaration of title and possession in respect of the same land i.e. Survey No.742/5. A counter-claim was also filed by petitioners. The suit filed by the respondent as well as the counter-claim filed by petitioners were dismissed by judgment and decree dated 20.10.2023 passed by II Additional Judge to the Court of I Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sheopur, District Sheopur (M.P.) in RCS A No.110/2018 by holding that the dispute between the parties has already been adjudicated and a permanent injunction has also been granted, therefore, the suit is barred by the principle of res judicata and accordingly it was held that in case if petitioners have violated the decree for permanent injunction, then respondent/plaintiff is free to take legal action under the provisions of law.

4. So far as the counter-claim of petitioners was concerned, it was held that petitioners have failed to prove that they are the owner of Survey No.742/7 Min-1. Thereafter, respondent has filed a fresh execution proceedings which were objected by petitioners, however, by order dated 05.04.2025, the objection raised by petitioners with regard to execution of decree passed in Civil Suit No.113-A/69 has been rejected.

5. Challenging the impugned order dated 05.04.2025, it is submitted by counsel for petitioners that the decree for declaration of title, removal of construction and permanent injunction was passed on 22.12.1979 and thereafter execution proceedings were dropped by holding that decree has been satisfied. Therefore, now, initiation of fresh proceedings for execution of decree passed in Civil Suit No.113-A/69 is bad in law. It is further submitted that even otherwise, the decree passed in Civil Suit No.113-A/69 cannot be executed after 56 years of decree.

6. Heard learned counsel for petitioner.

7. The moot question for consideration is as to whether any limitation is provided for execution of a decree for permanent injunction?

8. Article 136 of Limitation Act provides that an application for enforcement or execution of a decree granting a perpetual injunction shall not be subject to any period of limitation.

9. The Supreme Court in the case of Bhudev Mallick Alias Bhudeb Mallick & Anr. Vs. Ranajit Ghoshal & Ors. [Civil Appeal No.2248 of 2025 - order dated 17.01.2025 and reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 360] has held as under:

“36. It is well settled that a decree of permanent injunction is executable with the aid of the provisions contained in Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code referred to above, and any act in violation or breach of decree of permanent injunction is a continuing disobedience entailing penal consequences.

37. In Jai Dayal And Others v. Krishan Lal Garg and Another reported in (1996) 11 SCC 588 , this Court considered the effect of decree of permanent injunction as well as the scope of provisions of Order 21 Rule 32 of