IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT INDORE

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI

th

ON THE 15 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. PETITION No. 7303 of 2025

NARAYAN AND OTHERS

Versus

CHAGGANLAL AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Zenith Chhablani - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Gajendra Singh Dodia - G.A. for the respondent/State.

ORDER prayer in the application under Order 21 Rule 11 of CPC be dismissed. After that Annexure P-6 an application under Order 21 Rule 32 of CPC was filed by the decree holder. Counsel further submits that the order passed by the Court below is bad in law as no satisfaction with regard to the wilful disobedience of decree has been recorded by the executing Court. Hence, prays for allowing the petition by setting aside the impugned order.

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed

against the impugned order dated 29.11.2025 passed by the III Civil Judge, Junior

Division, Tarana, District Ujjain in EXA No.07/2025.

2. In the impugned order it has been directed that a notice be issued

against the judgment debtor/petitioners herein as to why he be not kept in civil

prison for infringement of the decree and perpetual injunction.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the decree was passed

in favour of the decree holder in RCSA.No.120/2024 wherein execution proceedings are pending before the Civil Court, Tarana, district Ujjain. Firstly an application under Order 21 Rule 11 CPC Annexure P-1 was filed and after that application under Order 21 Rule 31 Annexrue P-2 and thereafter another application under Section 151 of CPC Annexure P-3 was filed for execution of the decree. Reply Annexure P-4 to applications Annexure P-2 and Annexure P-3 were filed on behalf of the petitioners. Another application Annexure P-5 under Section 151 of CPC filed on behalf of the judgment debtor objecting the execution to the

4. Heard and considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. It is not in dispute that the procedure for execution of the decree passed in injunction suit has been proved under Order 21 Rule 32 of CPC wherein it is also provided that if it is found that decree has been disobeyed it can be executed by detention of the judgment debtor in civil prison or by attachment of his property or by both.

6. The Apex Court in the case of Bhudev Mallick @ Bhudeb Mallick and another Vs. Ranajit Ghoshal and others Civil Appeal No.2248/2025 vide order dated 17.01.2025 having similar controversy as involved in the instant case in paragraphs 46 to 52, 59 and 61 has held as under:-

"46. Each breach of injunction is independent and actionable in law making the judgment-debtor answerable. Where there are successive breaches of decree, the judgment-debtor can be dealt with on every such breach and the doctrine of res judicata has no application. The court is expected to take strict view and stern action. (See : Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by Justice C.K. Thakker, 2009 Edn.)

47. However, the point for our consideration in the present appeal is whether the executing court adopted the correct procedure before passing the order directing that the appellants herein be arrested and detained in civil prison for a period of 30 days and that their property be attached.

48. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 32 of 0rder XXI of the Code, in so far it is material for the present discussion, reads thus:-

“Where the party against whom a decree ................ 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 an injunction by his detention in the civil prison ..................”

49. The sub-rule, as seen from its clear and explicit language, provides that a decree for injunction passed against a party could be enforced by his detention in a civil prison, if he has willfully failed to obey such decree despite having had an opportunity of obeying it. In other words, t