IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN ON THE 10^th OF FEBRUARY, 2026 CIVIL REVISION No. 704 of 2025 DURGA PRASAD AND OTHERS Versus MANIKRAO AND OTHERS WITH CIVIL REVISION No. 523 of 2025 DURGA PRASAD AND OTHERS Versus MANIKRAO AND OTHERS ……………………………………………………………………………………………

Appearance:

Shri Sushil Kumar Tiwari - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Sankalp Kochar - Advocate for respondents.

……………………………………………………………………………………………

O R D E R The present revisions have been filed challenging different interlocutory orders during course of same execution proceedings, therefore they are being heard together and decided by this common order.

2. In CR No.523 of 2025, challenge is made to the order dated 07.05.2025 whereby the application of the petitioners-judgement debtors under Section 47 CPC has been rejected. In CR 704 of 2025 challenge is made to the order dated 20.06.2025 passed by the Executing Court whereby upon an application under Order 21 Rule 35 CPC the possession warrant has been issued by the Executing Court.

3. The Learned counsel for the petitioners- Judgement debtors have vehemently argued that the aforesaid orders of the Executing Court are utterly illegal and cannot be allowed to sustain judicial scrutiny of this Court and the Executing Court has overreached its jurisdiction in permitting possession to be handed over to the decree holders in execution of decree for permanent injunction.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a ground that the execution application was filed and in the execution application an interlocutory application was filed under Order 21 Rule 35 CPC. Though the execution of decree of perpetual injunction can be made as per Order 21 Rule 32 and hence, the interlocutory application ought to have been filed under Rule 32 not under Rule 35 of Order 21. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the trial Court ought not to have directed delivery of possession in an application filed under Order 21 Rule 35 CPC because such an application could not have been filed in an execution petition seeking execution of decree for perpetual injunction. It is further argued that the Executing Court could not have proceeded to restore back the possession of the decree holder on the land in question and in doing so, the Executing Court has overreached its jurisdiction.

5. By referring to various judgments, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner- judgement debtor that it is settled that possession cannot not be delivered under Order 21 Rule 32 but can only be delivered under Order 21 Rule 35 and therefore, the Executing Court has overreached its jurisdiction.

6. It is further argued that even the application under Section 47 has been erroneously rejected by the Executing Court because the judgement debtor has a right to raise objections and such objections have to be considered by the Executing Court in a judicious manner by giving proper hearing to the parties and on proper consideration of the grounds raised in the said application. It was vehemently argued that in the application under Section 47 CPC, the objections were that the decree is inexecutable because various questions arise in the matter of identity and identification of the land in question.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-decree holder has vehemently supported the decree on the ground that it is settled in law that in decree for perpetual injunction if the judgement debtor dispossesses the decree holder after passing of the decree then the Executing Court can always restore back the possession of the decree holder and the decree holder is not required to file one suit after another again and again, just to get possession of the land from which he has been dispossessed despite decree for perpetual injunction.

8. Heard.

9. The trial court in the present case has passed a decree on 26.12.2001 and though granted limited declaration in favour of the plaintiff