Execution proceedings under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC require a subsisting decree or order of injunction; a mere statement made by a party in a suit dismissed as withdrawn is not an executable decree, although its breach may attract contempt jurisdiction.

MANDEEP PANNU J.

1. The present civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner–defendant challenging the order dated 31.05.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurdaspur, whereby the application filed by the respondent–Gram Panchayat under Order XXI Rule 32 read with Section 151 CPC was allowed and warrants of attachment of the property of the petitioner were ordered to be issued for alleged violation of a statement made by him in the court on 26.07.1996.

2. The facts, in brief, as borne out from the impugned order and the record, are that the respondent–Gram Panchayat had earlier instituted a civil suit for permanent injunction restraining the present petitioner from storing “Haddo Rora” and from carrying on the work of skinning of dead animals on land measuring 1 kanal 10 marlas situated in Village Kalyanpur. During the pendency of the said suit, the petitioner appeared before the civil court and on 26.07.1996 made a statement that he had no concern with the suit land and that he was not doing any business or work on the said land. On the basis of the said statement, the learned trial court dismissed the suit as withdrawn on 26.07.1996, while recording that the defendant shall remain bound by his statement.

3. Thereafter, the respondent–Gram Panchayat filed an application under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC alleging that subsequent to the dismissal of the suit, the petitioner had started storing “Haddo Rora” and had resumed the work of skinning of dead animals on the suit land, thereby violating the undertaking given to the court. It was pleaded that the alleged acts of the petitioner were causing nuisance, health hazards and were in breach of the statement recorded by the court. On this premise, coercive action including attachment of property and civil imprisonment was sought.

4. The petitioner filed a written reply taking a preliminary objection that the application under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC was not maintainable as no decree, injunction or executable order existed in favour of the Gram Panchayat. It was pleaded that the suit having been dismissed as withdrawn, there was no subsisting decree or direction capable of execution. On merits, the allegations of violation were denied and it was asserted that no work of skinning of animals was being carried out on the suit land and that the petitioner was engaged in transport business.

5. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the respondent violated the undertaking dated 26.07.1996 given before the court?

2. Relief.

6. In order to prove its case, the applicant–Gram Panchayat examined AW1 Sukhjinder Singh, Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, who deposed regarding the alleged violation of the statement and proved the resolution authorising him to file the application. AW2 Mehga Singh, an adjoining land owner, was also examined in support of the allegations. Documentary evidence including certified copies of the statement dated 26.07.1996 and the order dismissing the suit as withdrawn were placed on record. The petitioner, however, failed to appear and was proceeded against ex parte, whereafter the applicant closed its evidence.

7. Upon consideration of the pleadings and evidence, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurdaspur held that the petitioner had violated the statement made by him in