[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pramod Sadani vs Mukesh Katiya on 22 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2114
1 CR-33-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 22nd OF JANUARY, 2026
CIVIL REVISION No. 33 of 2026
PRAMOD SADANI
Versus
MUKESH KATIYA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manish Kumar Vijaywargiya - Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
This Civil Revision has been preferred being aggrieved by the impugned order
dated 19.12.2025 (Annexure A/1) passed in Execution Case No. 27/2025 whereby the
learned Executing Court has dismissed the application for execution as decree has
already been executed and earlier possession of the disputed land was delivered to the
decree holder.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in Civil Suit No. 9A/2014
which was passed for declaration, possession and permanent injunction was decreed on
28.09.2016 and suit was decreed for all the reliefs claimed. In execution proceedings,
the possession of the disputed land bearing survey Nos. 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227,
1228, 1229, 1230, total area 0.916 hectare was given to the petitioner/decree holder on
09.05.2025 (Annexure A/5). Learned counsel further submits that there is no time limit
for filing execution proceedings if the judgment debtor interferes in the possession over
the disputed property for which decree for perpetual injunction has already been
granted. He further submits that application may be made for any number of times
when the judgment debtor interferes with the possession of the decree holder, therefore,
he submits that impugned order (Annexure A/1) passed by the Court below is bad in
law which has been passed ignoring the settled position of law and legal provisions,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2114
2 CR-33-2026
therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order.
3. To buttress his submission, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the
coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jagivan Das Jaiswal vs. Mst Nohari Bai &
Ors. (Civil Revision No. 305/2015, decided on 22.08.2024).
4. Heard and considered the submissions raised on behalf of the petitioner and
perused the record.
5. It is not in dispute that decree (Annexure A/2) was in favour of
petitioner/decree holder passed in Civil Suit No.RCS/9A/2014 for the following
reliefs:-
''(अ) यह घो षत कया जाता है क ाम सारं गापुर जला राजगढ़ थत
सव मांक 1223, 1224, 2225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229 तथा सव
मांक- 1230 कुल कता-8 एवं कुल रकबा 0.916 है टै यर भूिम वाद के
व व क होकर उसके संबंध म व0 खुमान ारा िन पा दत पंजीकृ त
व य प दनांक 13.07.2011 ितवाद गण 1 से 4 पर बंधनकार है ।
(ब) ितवाद गण ं -1 से 4 िनणय दनांक से दो माह क अविध के
भीतर उ भूिम का र अिधप य वाद को स प दे ते तथा इसके उपरांत
स भुिम पर वाद के अिधप य म कोई अवैध ह त ेप न तो वयं कर
न ह कसी अ य से ऐसी कराव।
(स) करण क प र थितय म उभयप अपना-अपना वाद- यय
वहन करगे। अिभभाषक शु क मा णत होने पर या िस वल िनयम
523 के अंतगत सूची अनुसार, जो भी कम हो, आंकिलत कया जावे। ''
6. From perusal of the aforesaid decree, it is clear that for disputed agricultural
land situated at Village - Sarangpur, Dist. Rajgarh of 8 survey numbers, total area
0.916 hectare decree holder was declared title holder and defendants (respondents
herein) were directed to handover the possession within two months from the date of
judgment and also restrained from interfering in the possession of the decree
holder. Annexure A/5 reveals that possession of aforesaid different survey numbers
which were in dispute in the aforesaid Civil Suit was delivered by the reliefs to the
decree holder on 09.05.2025. Order dated 11.11.2025 passed in Writ Petition No.
43271/2025 (Pramod Sadani vs. The State of M.P.) reveals that the Writ Court has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2114
3 CR-33-2026
directed the petitioner to prefer appropriate application before the Executing Court
under Order 21 Rule 32 of the CPC for execution of the decree passed in his favour
raising all the grounds as have been raised by him in the petition. In compliance of this
order, execution application dated 17.11.2025 (Annexure A/6) which has been
dismissed by impugned order was filed. Coordinate Bench of this Court in Jagivan Das
Jaiswal (supra) in identical facts of the case has held in para 13 that no limitation for
filing the application for execution of decree of permanent injunction is there and the
application for execution of a decree of permanent injunction under Order 21 Rule 32
of CPC can be filed for many number of times, depending on the circumstances
surrounding the enforcement of the decree. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid
order is reproduced hereunder:-
"13. Aforesaid legal position makes it clear that there
is no limitation for filing the application for execution
of decree of permanent injunction and the application
for execution of a decree of permanent injunction
under Order 21 Rule 32 of CPC can be filed many
times, depending on the circumstances surrounding the
enforcement of the decree. The decree-holder can file
execution applications as long as there is a continuing
violation or disobedience of the decree. Further, in the
execution of a decree for injunction, even. restoration
of possession can be ordered by the Executing Court."
7. From perusal of the aforesaid order, it is apparent that there is no bar in filing
the execution proceedings. In the facts and circumstances of the case if decree for
perpetual injunction is defied by the judgment debtor, it can be filed many number of
times. It is also not in dispute that procedure for execution of the decree for perpetual
injunction is given under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC.
8. The Apex Court in the case of Bhudev Mallick @ Bhudeb Mallick and
another Vs. Ranajit Ghoshal and others Civil Appeal No.2248/2025 vide order dated
17.01.2025 has provided procedure to execute the decree of perpetual injunction.
Relevant paragraphs No. 46 to 52, 59 and 61of the judgment are extracted as under:-
"46. Each breach of injunction is independent and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2114
4 CR-33-2026
actionable in law making the judgment-debtor
answerable. Where there are successive breaches of
decree, the judgment-debtor can be dealt with on every
such breach and the doctrine of res judicata has no
application. The court is expected to take strict view
and stern action. (See : Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
by Justice C.K. Thakker, 2009 Edn.)
47. However, the point for our consideration in the
present appeal is whether the executing court adopted
the correct procedure before passing the order
directing that the appellants herein be arrested and
detained in civil prison for a period of 30 days and that
their property be attached.
48. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 32 of 0rder XXI of the Code,
in so far it is material for the present discussion, reads
thus:-
"Where the party against whom a decree ................ for
an injunction has been passed, has had an opportunity
of obeying the decree and has wilfully failed to obey
it, the decree may be enforced .. in the case of a decree
.. for an injunction by his detention in the civil prison
.................."
49. The sub-rule, as seen from its clear and explicit
language, provides that a decree for injunction passed
against a party could be enforced by his detention in a
civil prison, if he has willfully failed to obey such
decree despite having had an opportunity of obeying
it. In other words, the sub-rule, no doubt, enables a
holder of a decree for injunction to seek its execution
from the executing Court by requiring it to order the
detention of the person bound by the decree, in a civil
prison. But, the Court should not, according to the
same sub-rule, make an order for detention of the
person unless it is satisfied that that person has had an
Opportunity of obeying the decree and yet has
willfully disobeyed it.
50. If regard is had to the above scope and ambit of
the sub-rule, it follows that the executing Court
required to execute the decree for injunction against
the person bound by that decree, by ordering his
detention, cannot do so without recording a finding on
the basis of the materials to be produced by the person
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2114
5 CR-33-2026
seeking the execution of the decree that the person
bound by the decree, though has had an opportunity of
obeying the decree, has willfully failed to obey it, as a
condition precedent. Hence, what is required of the
person seeking execution of the decree for injunction
under the sub-rule is to place materials before the
executing Court as would enable it to conclude (i) that
the person bound by the decree, was fully aware of the
terms of the decree and its binding nature upon him;
and (ii) that that person has had an opportunity of
obeying such decree, but has willfully, i.e.,
consciously and deliberately, disobeyed such decree,
so that it can make an order of his detention as sought
for. Thus, the onus of placing materials before the
executing Court for enabling it to record a finding that
the person against whom the order of detention is
sought, has had an opportunity of obeying the decree
for injunction, but has willfully disobeyed it, lies on
the person seeking such order of detention, lest the
person seeking deprivation of the liberty of another
cannot do so without fully satisfying the Court about
its need.(See :Shivamurthy Mahalingappa Kuchanaur
v. Dannammadevi Cycle Mart,Rabakavi, AIR 1987
Karnataka 26).
51. In the instant case, the executing court has
proceeded to make the order of arrest, detention in a
civil prison for a period of 30 days and attachment of
property against the appellants herein when there was
absolutely no material placed by the respondents
herein to satisfy it that the appellants have had an
opportunity of obeying the decree for injunction, but
have willfully disobeyed it. In fact, the order of arrest
and detention made by the executing court is based on
a surmise that the respondents (decree-holders) have
levelled allegations that the appellants herein are
interfering with their peaceful possession of the
property in question and in this regard, few complaints
of breaches made to the police were placed before the
executing court.
52. The executing court proceeded merely on the basis
of the assertions made by the respondents that the
appellants herein are trying to interfere with their
peaceful possession of the suit property without any
further inquiry into the matter. We do not propose to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2114
6 CR-33-2026
go into the question whether a separate affidavit
should have been filed by the respondents herein along
with the application preferred before the executing
court levelling allegations of breach of the permanent
injunction.
59. Before we close this matter, we would like to put a
question to the executing court as to why it did not
deem fit to afford one opportunity of hearing to the
appellants herein? What would have happened if the
executing court would have permitted the appellants
herein to place their written objections on record? It is
true that there was some delay on the part of the
appellants herein in responding to the summons issued
by it, but at the same time, having regard to the severe
consequences, the executing court should have been a
little more considerate while declining even to take the
objections on record and give one opportunity of
hearing to the appellants before passing the order of
arrest, detention in a civil prison and attachment of the
property. This aspect unfortunately has been
overlooked even by the High Court while affirming the
order passed by the executing court. The High Court
itself could have remanded the matter to the executing
court with a view to give an opportunity of hearing to
the appellants herein. The supervisory jurisdiction
vested in the High Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution is meant to take care of such situations
like the one on hand.
61. However, we clarify that it shall be open for the
respondents herein (decree-holders) to file a fresh
application if at all there is any interference at the
instance of the appellants herein (judgment-debtors) in
so far as their possession of the property in question is
concerned. If any such fresh application is filed, the
executing court shall look into the same strictly
keeping in mind the observations made by this Court
in this order and decide the same on its own merits."
9. Learned trial Court has committed serious error of law in dismissing the
application merely for the reason that earlier the decree was executed and possession
was handed over to the decree holder. This order also defies the order of this Court
passed in Writ Petition No. 43271/2025 (Pramod Sadani vs. The State of M.P.).
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2114
7 CR-33-2026
10. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 19.12.2025
(Annexure A/1) passed by the Court below is not sustainable and is hereby set aside
with the direction to the Executing Court to proceed to execute the decree in
accordance with the law and procedure as prescribed under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC.
11. Accordingly, the present Civil Revision is allowed and disposed of.
Copy of this order be also sent to the Principal District Judge, Rajgarh for taking
note of the working pattern of his subordinates and advice, if required.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
soumya
