Order

BY THE COURT:-

1. By way of the present Civil Revision Petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 09.07.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Sri Ganganagar in Civil Execution Case No.31/2023, whereby the application dated 17.10.2023, preferred by the petitioner (judgment-debtor), was rejected and the learned Execution Court proceeded with the matter in accordance with the procedure envisaged under Order XXI Rules 32 (5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

2. The genesis of the dispute arose out of a civil suit instituted by the respondent–decree-holder (plaintiff) seeking a declaration and permanent injunction concerning land in dispute. The suit, registered as Civil Suit No.593/1995 before the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Sri Ganganagar wherein it was specifically prayed for declaration of the Will dated 24.08.1979 as null and void, alongside an assertion of plaintiff’s continued possession over the suit property.

3. The suit was partly decreed by the learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 12.11.1999. Upon challenge, the learned Addl. District Judge No.1, Sri Ganganagar by judgment dated 24.09.2003, reversed the findings of the trial Court and set aside the decree. However, said appellate judgment was carried in further challenge before this Court by the respondent-decree holder, and this Court, vide judgment dated 13.12.2013, allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment dated 24.09.2003 and restoring and affirming the decree dated 12.11.1999 of the trial Court.

3.1. Following the culmination of the litigation, the respondents initiated Execution Petition No.31/2023 seeking enforcement of the decree dated 12.11.1999, primarily on the allegation that the judgment-debtor (present petitioner), in collusion with anti-social elements, had forcibly dispossessed the decree holders during the pendency of the proceedings, and therefore, he also sought restoration of possession.

3.2. In response, the petitioner/judgment-debtor raised an objection that the decree under execution was limited to declaratory relief and injunction, and the same did not contain a verdict of recovery possession. Accordingly, it was urged that the execution court could not travel beyond the scope of the decree, and therefore, the relief of possession could not be granted through execution proceeding.

3.3. The learned Civil Judge, after hearing both parties, dismissed the application moved at the instance of by the petitioner by passing the impugned order dated 09.07.2025, giving rise to a challenge in the present revision petition.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the order under challenge so also the other relevant material and respectfully gone through the judgment supplied by the learned counsel for the respondent.

5. The respondents have sought execution of a decree of prohibitory injunction under the provisions of Order XXI Rule 32 CPC, and for its effective implementation have prayed for restoration of possession of the decreetal property. As per Rule 32(1), a decree for injunction whether mandatory or prohibitory may be enforced by detaining the judgment-debtor in civil prison, by attaching his property, or by both. In instances of disobedience, sub-rule (5) empowers the Court, at its discretion, to direct that the requisite act be carried out by the decree-holder or any other authorised person, with the costs to be borne by the judgment-debtor. These provisions apply equally to mandatory and prohibitory injunctions.

6. In the present case, the decree, passed in 1999, attained finality after protracted litigation. At the stage when the decree-holder was poised to enjoy the fruits of the judgment, the judgment-debtor, in willful defiance of law, forcibly dispossessed the decree-holder from the decreetal property with the clear objective of defeating the decree’s enforcement. Although the decree did not specifically grant relief of possession, and the Code of Civil Procedure does not exp