Lali Devi And Another vs Zile Singh
2022 Latest Caselaw 7880 P&H

  122 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                    CHANDIGARH

                                               CR-6100-2019 (O&M)
                                               Date of decision: 27.07.2022
Smt. Lali Devi and another

                                                ....Petitioners

             Versus

Zile Singh
                                               ..Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

Present: Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the petitioners

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J (Oral)

The petitioners' suit for grant of decree of permanent

injunction as well as mandatory injunction was dismissed by the trial

court on 25.05.2016. In para 13 the court noticed that the defendants are

already in possession of certain part of the suit property. In the appeal

filed, the court granted limited relief to the petitioners vide judgment and

decree dated 10.04.2017, operative part whereof reads as under:-

"21. Hence, as a sequel to my above findings, present appeal is accepted partly with costs whereby defendant is permanently restrained from making any further encroachment upon the passage in dispute. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly. Counsel fees is assssed Rs.3300/-. Copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent back to the learned trial court. File of this appeal be consigned to record room after due compliance."

An application filed by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule

32 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been dismissed by the court

on the ground that the appellate court did not grant any relief of

mandatory injunction and the executing court cannot go behind the

decree.

1 of 2

The petitioners assail its correctness. Before passing any

order under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the

court is required to record a finding that the judgment debtor despite the

opportunity has wilfully failed to obey the decree. The consequences

that ensue from Order 21 Rule 32 includes his detention in the civil

imprisonment or by attachment of his property. Such serious

consequences require decree holder to prove his case beyond the

reasonable doubt. In the present case, despite an opportunity given, the

petitioners have failed to draw the attention of the Court to such material

which will enable the court to record such finding. Hence, no ground to

interfere is made out.

Dismissed.

All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also

disposed of.

27.07.2022                                       (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
rekha                                                 JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned :         Yes/No
Whether reportable :                Yes/No




                                  2 of 2