[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kamal Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2142
1 WP-38460-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
ON THE 16 th OF JANUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 38460 of 2025
KAMAL KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Yash Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms.Smrati Sharma - Govt. Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
Heard on the question of admission.
The instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
claims the following reliefs:
"(a) That, respondent authorities may kindly be directed to conduct the
enquiry against the erring revenue officers who are responsible for
making willful interference in the land in question in utter disregard to
the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in S.A. No. 2432/2024.
(b) That, respondent authorities may kindly be directed to take
affirmative steps in pursuance of representations given by the
petitioner.
(c) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit may also kindly
be granted."
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in spite of the
fact that respondent No.6 has lost up to this Court in Second Appeal
No.2432/2024 (Annexure-P/4) with respect to the issue of title, possession and
permanent injunction granted in favor of the petitioner by the civil court in
Regular Civil Suit No.12A/2021, pertaining to land bearing survey Nos.19, 20, 21,
22, 37, 38 and 41, admeasuring 0.1000, 0.1700, 0.2500, 0.4900, 0.0500, 0.430,
0.6200 and 0.8500 hectares respectively, situated at Village Jaitpura, Tehsil
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2142
2 WP-38460-2025
Virpur, District Sheopur, the respondent No.6, in connivance with certain revenue
authorities, is interfering into the possession of the petitioner and is violating the
order passed by this Court dated 28.07.2025 in Second Appeal No.2432/2024, and
therefore, the instant writ petition has been filed seeking appropriate directions to
the Collector, before whom the petitioner has already made a representation.
3. This Court has gone through the pleadings made in the petition along
with the documents placed on record. It reveals that a decree of declaration and
permanent injunction in respect of the lands in question has been passed in favor
of the petitioner vide judgment dated 26.09.2023 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior
Division, Vijaypur, District Sheopur, in Regular Civil Suit No.12A/2021. The
challenge made by respondent No.6 to the aforesaid judgment and decree
remained unsuccessful up to this Court, and his second appeal was dismissed vide
order dated 28.07.2025 (Annexure-P/4).
4. Though the relief prayed for in the petition has been couched in a manner
to indicate that the respondents are violating the order passed by this Court in
Second Appeal No.2432/2024; however, the fact remains that the judgment and
decree has been passed by the civil court in favor of the petitioner, and the
interference therein has been declined by this Court in the second appeal preferred
by respondent No.6, thereby affirming the decree passed by the trial Court,
however, no specific direction has been issued by this Court vide order dated
28.07.2025 passed in Second Appeal No.2432/2024.
5. In case the judgment-debtors violate the injunction decree and forcibly
take possession, whether the remedy of the decree holders would be to file
application under Order 21 Rule 32 of the CPC has been emphatically settled by
this Court in the case of Toram Singh vs. Imrat Singh and Other reported in 2012
(3) MPLJ 385, in which it has been held in paragraph Nos.12 to 16 as under:
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2142
3 WP-38460-2025
"12. A bare perusal of the recommendation shows that the
intention was to adopt a wider view to cover prohibitory as well as
mandatory injunctions. Interestingly, this recommendation was
made by Law Commission even contrary to the views taken by
various High Courts before such recommendation. It was felt
necessary to include that Explanation in the interest of justice so
that decree-holder should not be driven to a separate suit for
getting relief in the nature of enforcement of a decree which will
ultimately save his time, labour and money. Once the said
recommendation is translated in reality by including it in CPC by
way of Explanation, the basic question is whether petitioner can
succeed on the strength of existing provision, i.e., Order 21 Rule
32 (1) (5), read with Explanation. In the opinion of this Court, the
Executing Court has power and jurisdiction to pass any order to
see that the decree is enforced and implemented and it is obeyed
by the judgment debtor. Even a decree of a permanent prohibitory
injunction needs to be enforced as per the said Explanation. If the
judgment debtor had gained possession on the decree-holder's
property by violating decree, said judgment debtor needs to be
expelled by the Executive Court by exercising powers under Order
21 Rule 32 or by exercising inherent powers under Section 151 of
CPC.
13. In my considered opinion, the Court below has given specific
finding regarding allotment of land in favour of the petitioner
which had not been cancelled, coupled with the finding that the
petitioner is in possession. On the strength of these findings, the
permanent injunction was granted with further direction to not to
disturb the petitioner from the possession. If contrary to aforesaid
judgment and decree, judgment debtor had disturbed and gained
possession, it amounts to defeating the decree passed by the Court
below. Thus, it has to be held that the judgment debtor forcibly
dispossessed the plaintiff in violation of order or injunction and
took possession of the property. The Executing Court has ample
jurisdiction to prevent the decree being flouted and to do justice to
the plaintiff by putting back the plaintiff in possession of the
property. This Court finds support from the following judgments:
--
(i) Ram Charan Sikarwar Vs. Smt. Jogamaya Casu, AIR 1978 Cal
193. (ii) Hari Nandan Agrawal and another Vs. S.N. Pandita, AIR
1975 All 48. (iii) Magna Vs. Rustam, AIR 1963 Raj. 3. (iv) Surjit
Pal Vs. Prabir Kumar Sun, AIR 1986 Cal 220. (v) Delhi
Development Authority Vs. Kipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd.,
(1996) 4 SCC 622 = AIR 1996 SC 2005. (vi) Ajayakumar Vs.
Damayanthi (2004) 2 Ker Lt 48. (vii) Century Flour Mills Ltd. Vs.
S. Suppiah, AIR 1975 Mad. 270 (FB). (viii) Parukutty Amma Vs.
Thankamma Amma, (1988) 1 Ker LT 883. (ix) State of Orissa Vs.
Sudhansu Sekhar Misra, AIR 1968 SC 647. (x) Thukalan Poulo
Avira Vs. Mar Rasselios Gheevarghese, AIR 1954 TravCo. 117.
(xi) Krishna Vs. Joseph Desouza, 1985 Ker LtT 1010 = AIR 1986
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2142
4 WP-38460-2025
Ker 63. (xii) Mohammad Vs.. Mohammed Haji, 1986 Ker LT 134.
(xiii) Manohar Lal Chopra Vs. Raj Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal,
AIR 1962 SC 527. (xiv) Hamsa Vs. George, (1995) 2 Ker LT 326
= (1995) AIHC 6153). (xv) Mohd. Idris Vs. Rustam Jehangir
Bahuji, (1984) 4 SCC 216 = AIR 1984 SC 1826. (xvi)
Thazhapattathillath Krishnan Namboodiri and others Vs.
Thazhapattathillath Damodaran Namboodiri (Died) by LR. and
etc., AIR 2005 Ker 328.
14. In AIR 1975 Madras 270 (FB), the Full Bench of the High
Court held that Order 39 of CPC should not be considered as
placing any limit on the scope of inherent power under Section
151, which are wide and not subject to any limitation. Whenever
there is any violation of an order or injunction against party, or
something has been done in disobedience, it will be the duty of the
Court to put the clock back to set the wrong right and not allow the
perpetuation of the wrong doing. The inherent power of the Court
will not only be available in such cases, but it is bound to be
exercised in that manner in the interest of justice. The same view
was taken in Surjit Pal Vs. Prabir Kumar Sun, AIR 1986 Calcutta
220 and Hari Nandan Agrawal and another Vs. S.N. Pandita, AIR
1975 Allahabad 482.
15. I will be failing in my duty, if I do not mention that there were
conflicting views expressed in various decisions of various High
Courts regarding applicability of Order 21 Rule 32 in respect of
decrees of prohibitory injunction. Some of the High Courts took a
view that sub-rule (5) of Rule 32 of Order 21 cannot be invoked to
enforce a decree of prohibitory injunction, while some Courts have
taken contrary view. However, the controversy can be said to be
put to rest by bringing the explanation below sub-rule (5). The
statement of objects and reasons of CPC (Amendment) Act, 2002,
makes the position clear that the Explanation to Rule 32 was
added on the basis of the report of Law Commission. Thus, the
intention of the Parliament and legal mandate is to implement the
prohibitory injunctions in execution proceedings.
16. On the basis of principles of law laid down by various High
Courts, there is no doubt that the Executing Court is not justified
in closing the matter about delivery of possession on a hyper
technical ground that decree for prohibitory injunction cannot be
enforced in the manner prayed by the decree holder. The decision
is bad in law and if this decision is permitted to stand, it will lead
to a situation of lawlessness and the decree holder will be
compelled to file another suit for possession. This is not the
intention of Order 21 Rule 32 (5) and the Explanation. The duty of
the Court is to see that the inherent powers are exercised when
needs to be exercised, otherwise the litigant will loose faith in
Courts and they may resort to other illegal short cuts than
approaching the Civil Court."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2142
5 WP-38460-2025
6. Thus, when a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction is violated and
judgment-debtors gain possession of the decree holders property by violating the
decree, the judgment-debtors may be expelled by the executing Court by
exercising powers under Order 21 Rule 32 of the CPC. It would not be necessary
for the decree holder to take any proceedings for seeking recovery of possession of
the property or to institute a fresh suit. The same can very well be done in the
proceedings instituted by the decree holders by the executing Court itself.
7. In view of the above proposition laid down by this Court and availability
of remedy under Order XXI Rule 32 of the CPC to the petitioner, admission to the
instant writ petition is declined. The petitioner is set at liberty to avail the remedy
available to him before the Executing Court.
8. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.
9. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stand closed.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
Adnan
