IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

242 CR-8757-2017(O&M)

Date of decision: 23.03.2026 Prem ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Late Sh. Narata Ram through his LRs & Anr.

...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Tarun Kr. Parashar, Advocate for Mr. S.S. Momi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rahil Mahajan, Advocate for respondent No.1.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Revision Petition has been filed by the defendant No.2/judgment debtor seeking setting aside of the order dated 02.12.2017 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Shahabad (Annexure P1)

whereby objections filed by the petitioner/JD, have been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Executing Court is in grave error in passing the impugned order without making any determination in respect of the fact as to whether the petitioner had indeed cut the Safeda trees in violation of the decree, or not. It is submitted that merely on the basis of averment made in the Execution Application without considering the reply filed by the petitioner and without granting the petitioner any opportunity to lead any evidence, the petitioner has been held to have violated the decree. It is contended that the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Shahabad has passed the impugned order in an arbitrary and whimsical manner without adopting proper procedure.

3. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner further argues that the Execution Application has been filed under the provision of Order 21 Rule 32 CPC with the averment that despite the decree of injunction, present petitioner/judgment debtor had cut 41 trees of eucalyptus and also irrigated the land to sow the wheat crop. Learned counsel submits that as per the provision of law which is germane and relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the issue in the present revision i.e. Order 21 Rule 32(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as under: -

"Order 21, Rule 32(1): Decree for specific performance, for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction :

Where the party against whom a decree for the specific performance of a contract, or for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction, has been passed, has had an opportunity of obeying the decree and has willfully failed to obey it, the decree may be enforced in the case of a decree of restitution of conjugal rights by the attachment of his property or, in the case of a decree for the specific performance of a contract or for an injunction by his detention in the civil prison or by the attachment of his property, or by both."

4. It is submitted that from the bare reading of the above provision of law makes it very much manifest that the said provision is a penal one. As such, the provisions of the said Rule are required to be adhered to meticulously and scrupulously while depriving an individual of his liberty. In the instant case, no inquiry was held by the Civil Judge with regard to the cutting of trees in the disputed property. Bald statement of decree holder was relied by the Ld. Trial Court. Even though in the execution petition it was not mentioned that decree holder made any written complaint to the police after the incident; curiously the decree holder straight away come to the court after more than 3 years by making a false allegation which was not substantiated by any evidence much less legal. Hence, impugned order is liable to be set aside on this score alone. 5. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that unless the decree-holder, with cogent and convincing evidence, proves the existence of the ingredients of Rule 32 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the order of arrest cannot be made. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has made reference to a judgment in Malle Ranga Reddy v. Thirunagaru Purushotham (Telangana and Andhra Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc Id # 638402; wherein, while relying upon Koya Ranga Reddy v. Koya Narayana Reddy, (A.P.) : Law Finder D