Recently, the Supreme Court dealt with an appeal arising from the dismissal of a writ petition and a review petition by the High Court concerning an execution petition (EP) filed to enforce a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, and clarified that a decree of permanent injunction operates perpetually and can be enforced whenever there is a breach by the judgment-debtors or their successors.
The original suit was filed by the appellants’ predecessor and resulted in a decree restraining the respondents from interfering with their peaceful possession of agricultural fields. It also cancelled a supplementary sale deed in favour of the defendant's father and husband. Over time, multiple EPs were filed by the decree-holders. The first was closed after both parties failed to appear, and since the judgment-debtors gave a written assurance that they were not causing interference, the court recorded satisfaction. A second EP was filed but not pursued. The third EP was filed by the legal heirs of the original decree-holder, prompting the judgment-debtors to raise objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
The Appellant argued that the injunction was based only on the cancellation of the 1998 deed and not the 1984 sale deed, and claimed to have initiated proceedings to set aside the decree itself. The Executing Court dismissed the EP, citing satisfaction in the earlier EP, and this dismissal was upheld by the Revisional Court. The High Court, too, dismissed a writ petition and a subsequent review petition filed by the decree-holders, accepting the objection of the judgment-debtors.
Finding fault with the approach of the High Court, the Apex Court observed, “The High Court misconstrued the facts and misunderstood the orders impugned in the writ petition, and the writ petition filed by the decree holder against the dismissal of his EP was dismissed finding the objection of the judgment holder to be unsustainable.”
The Court emphasised that, “The decree was one of permanent prohibitory injunction from interference with the peaceful possession of the scheduled property. A satisfaction recorded in one EP would not result in the dismissal of a further EP filed on the ground of a subsequent interference caused.” Furthermore, the Court clarified that under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963, there is no limitation period for enforcing a decree of perpetual injunction. A decree of permanent injunction operates perpetually and can be enforced whenever there is a breach by the judgment-debtors or their successors.
In the light of these findings, the Supreme Court set aside the orders of the lower courts and remitted the matter to the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Champaran, for fresh consideration. The Court clarified that while it made prima facie observations regarding the objections under Section 47 CPC and the pending cancellation proceedings, these would not bind the executing court, which is to decide the matter independently.
Case Title: Saraswati Devi & Ors. Vs. Santosh Singh & Ors.
Case No : Special Leave Petition (C) Nos 2817-2818 of 2020
Coram: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Counsel for the Appellants: AOR, Nishit Agarwal, Adv. Sankalp Suman, Adv. Kanishka Mittal
Counsel for the Respondent: AOR Shoumendu Mukherji, Adv. Kusum Sapna Chhetri, Adv. Megha Sharma, Adv. Aniruddha Ghosh, Adv. Anshuman Mohanty
Read Judgment @ Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
