Executing court can restore possession if injunction decree is violated

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that where a decree of permanent injunction is violated by the judgment-debtor, the executing court is empowered under Order XXI Rule 32(5) CPC to adopt effective remedial measures, including restoration of possession and removal of construction, so that the decree-holder is not deprived of the fruits of litigation.

The judgment was delivered by Justice Bipin Gupta in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10242/2025, Bodulal (since deceased) through LRs vs Hanuman & Ors., pronounced on 18.02.2026.

The writ petition assailed the order dated 22.05.2025 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Nasirabad, District Ajmer, in Civil Execution Petition No. 12/2019, whereby objections under Section 47 CPC filed by the judgment-debtors were allowed and the execution petition was dismissed.

The dispute arose from a suit for permanent injunction instituted in respect of ancestral land comprised in Khasra No. 3217, admeasuring 14 Biswa and 10 Biswanshi. The plaintiff had pleaded continuous possession and alleged unlawful attempts by the defendants to raise construction and interfere with the property. By judgment and decree dated 29.10.2015, the trial court recorded a categorical finding that the plaintiff was in possession and restrained the defendants from causing obstruction or raising construction over the suit land. The decree was affirmed in appeal on 21.12.2024.

Alleging violation of the decree, the decree-holder filed execution proceedings, asserting that the defendants had encroached upon the property and disturbed possession after the decree. The judgment-debtors objected under Section 47 CPC, contending that the decree was one of injunction simpliciter and did not direct delivery of possession, and therefore possession could not be granted in execution.

The executing court upheld the objections, observing that the decree-holder had not specified the exact date or manner of dispossession and had not produced documentary evidence such as photographs to establish construction raised after the decree.

Setting aside the impugned order, the High Court reiterated that although an executing court cannot go behind the decree, it has a bounden duty to ensure its effective enforcement. The Court examined Order XXI Rule 32 CPC, particularly sub-rule (5), and noted that the provision confers wide and enabling powers to secure compliance of decrees for injunction. The Explanation appended to the rule clarifies that the expression “the act required to be done” covers prohibitory as well as mandatory injunctions.

The Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Meera Chauhan v. Harsh Bishnoi (2007) 12 SCC 201, wherein it was held that courts can restore possession to a party wronged by violation of an injunction order. It also referred to decisions of coordinate benches and other High Courts, including Naurang v. LRs of Late Chunnilal (S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 145/2025), Heeralal (deceased) through LRs v. Omprakash (Madhya Pradesh High Court), State of U.P. v. Kamla Negi (Allahabad High Court), and Kapoor Singh v. Om Prakash (AIR 2009 P&H 188), emphasising that dismissal of execution on technical grounds would frustrate the decree and compel multiplicity of proceedings.

The High Court noted that both the trial court and the appellate court had recorded concurrent findings that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property and that the defendants had failed to establish adverse possession. These findings had attained finality. Once such a decree of permanent injunction stood passed, the executing court could not revisit issues of possession prior to the decree or examine alleged defects in the commissioner’s report, as that would amount to going behind the decree.

The Court held that if the judgment-debtors had, after the decree, entered upon the land or raised construction in violation thereof, such conduct squarely attracted Order XXI Rule 32 CPC. The executing court ought to have examined whether there was wilful disobedience and whether remedial measures were warranted, instead of dismissing the execution petition for want of specific dates or photographic evidence.

Observing that the power under Order XXI Rule 32(5) CPC is remedial and intended to prevent frustration of judicial orders, the High Court allowed the writ petition. The order dated 22.05.2025 was quashed and set aside. The matter was remanded to the executing court with directions to restore the execution petition to its original number and proceed in accordance with law. The parties were directed to appear before the executing court on 09.03.2026, and the executing court was requested to decide the execution proceedings expeditiously, preferably within six months. No order as to costs was passed.

Case Title
Bodulal (since deceased) through LRs vs Hanuman & Ors.

Case Number
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10242/2025

Citation
[2026:RJ-JP:7606]

Court
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur

Bench
Justice Bipin Gupta

Date of Pronouncement
18/02/2026

Advocates
For Petitioners: Adv. Asad Sheikh
For Respondents: Adv. Reashm Bhargava

Judgments Relied Upon
Meera Chauhan v. Harsh Bishnoi (2007) 12 SCC 201
Naurang v. LRs of Late Chunnilal (S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 145/2025)
Heeralal (deceased) through LRs v. Omprakash (MP High Court, 2025)
State of U.P. v. Kamla Negi, 2024 (7) ADJ 22
Kapoor Singh v. Om Prakash, AIR 2009 P&H 188