IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 8 OF DECEMBER, 2025 CIVIL REVISION No. 1261 of 2025 BASANTA AND OTHERS Versus GHANSHYAM SINCE DEAD THROUGH LRS RAMKRISHNA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Sourabh Singh Thakur - Advocate for the petitioners.

ORDER The present petition has been filed, challenging the order dated

14.10.2025 passed by the Executing Court rejecting the application filed by the petitioner/judgment debtor for dismissal of execution proceedings.

2. The necessary facts for the purpose of disposal of the present petition are that, a decree for declaration and permanently injunction was passed at the instance of ancestors of the decree-holders against the ancestors of the judgment-debtors. The decree of permanently injunction was passed on 08.02.1984 and an execution application came to be filed in the year 2018, clearly mentioning in paragraph 10 of the application that the judgment-debtors have dispossessed the decree-holders and the decree- holders made prayer that the possession be delivered back from the judgment-debtors and ensure compliance of decree of specific performance.

3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner-judgment debtor that a decree for permanent injunction cannot be executed by ordering restoration of possession and such a course adopted by the executing Court is beyond the scope of Order 21 Rule 32, CPC. It is argued that the petitioners/ judgment-debtors have always been in actual possession of the suit property and they were never ousted from possession.

4. Upon considering the aforesaid argument, it is seen that there is admittedly a decree for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioner through their ancestors. This decree dated 08-02-1984 is not shown to have been set-aside or modified in any appeal. This decree has become final between the parties. The question that whether the executing Court could have ordered for restoration of possession during course of execution of decree for permanent injunction by exercising powers under Order 21 Rule 32, CPC has been settled by this court in the case of Toram Singh vs. Imrat Singh and other, 2012 (3) M.P.L.J, 385, wherein it has been held as under:-

"12. A bare perusal of the recommendation shows that the intention was to adopt a wider view to cover prohibitory as well as mandatory injunctions. Interestingly, this recommendation was made by Law Commission even contrary to the views taken by various High Courts before such recommendation. It was felt necessary to include that Explanation in the interest of justice so that decree-holder should not be driven to a separate suit for getting relief in the nature of enforcement of a decree which will ultimately save his time, labour and money. Once the said recommendation is translated in reality by including it in CPC by way of Explanation, the basic question is whether petitioner can succeed on the strength of existing provision, i.e., Order 21 Rule 32 (1) (5), read with Explanation. In the opinion of this Court, the Executing Court has power and jurisdiction to pass any order to see that the decree is enforced and implemented and it is obeyed by the judgment debtor. Even a decree of a permanent prohibitory injunction needs to be enforced as per the said Explanation. If the judgment debtor had gained possession on the decree-holder's property by violating decree, said judgment debtor needs to be expelled by the Executive Court by exercising powers under Order 21 Rule 32 or by exercising inherent powers under Section 151 of CPC.

13. In my considered opinion, the Court below has given specific finding regarding allotment of land in favour of the petitioner which had not been cancelled, coupled with the finding that the petitioner is in possession. On the strength of these findings, the permanent injunction was granted with further direction to not to disturb the petitioner from the possession. If contrary to aforesaid judgment and decr