O.21 R.32(5) CPC | Executing Court Can Restore Possession Of Property If Judgment-Debtor Violates Injunction Decree: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court held that where a decree of prohibitory injunction is rendered nugatory by judgment-debtor's willful and unlawful act of dispossessing the decree holder from the disputed property, the executing court had the power to direct restoration of possession under Order 21 Rule 32(5) CPC. 

Rejecting the argument that executing court's jurisdiction was confined to enforcing decree which in this matter was only prohibitory injunction and not delivery of possession, Justice Farjand Ali observed,

“The essence of an injunction decree is to preserve possession and to restrain intrusion, “injunct” in itself means you shall not enter or to restrain by injunction. If, in defiance thereof, possession is forcibly taken, then the concept of injunction equally encompasses the authority “to expel” and to restore the rightful party back into possession".

Referring to Order 21 Rule Rule 32(5) CPC the court said that it gives powers to the executing court to secure effective compliance of such decrees.

"It clarifies that where a decree of prohibitory injunction is rendered nugatory by the wilful and unlawful act of the judgment-debtor, particularly dispossession of the decree-holder, the court may adopt all measures essential to secure obedience, including the restoration of possession.To give full effect to an injunction decree, the executing court may also remove every obstruction set up in breach thereof, so that the successful litigant may truly reap the benefit of adjudication.Mere penal consequences under the contempt jurisdiction may not suffice; in appropriate circumstances, restoration of possession becomes the most efficacious mode of enforcement,” it added. 

A decree of permanent injunction in relation to an agricultural land was passed against the petitioner. After a decade, an execution petition was filed by the respondents, seeking enforcement alleging that the petitioner had unlawfully taken possession of the land using anti-social elements.

Petitioner filed objections contenting that the decree under execution was limited to an injunction and did not contain any direction for delivery of possession, hence, the executing court was incompetent to enlarge the scope of the decree. These objections were rejected. Hence, present revision petition was filed before the Court.

After hearing the contentions, the Court held that the civil court could not be rendered "helpless or handicapped" in light of such conduct. Order 21 Rule 32(5), CPC vested power in the executing court to secure effective compliance of such decrees.

Further, the Court also held that,

“In the present case, where the litigation has already consumed nearly a decade or more in the corridors of law, it would be wholly unjust to permit the decree to be frustrated or defeated by the sheer force or unlawful activity of the judgment-debtor…If, during or after the pendency of litigation, the judgment-debtor has forcibly dispossessed them in violation of the decree, the civil court is not powerless. On the contrary, it is under a bounden duty to act so that its solemn adjudication is not reduced to an illusory formality.”

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Title: Naurang v Lrs of Late Sri Chunnilal & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 282

Click Here To Read/Download Order