Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 715
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal Nos…….……. of 2025
(@Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.2817-2818 of 2020)
SARASWATI DEVI & ORS.
APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SANTOSH SINGH & ORS.
RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G E M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeals arise from an order of the High Court,
dismissing a writ petition and from the dismissal of the
review petition too. We cannot but, at the outset, indicate
that the High Court has misconstrued the entire case. The
writ petition was from an order in a revision affirming the
1
rejection of an Execution Petition . The EP was rejected
on the ground that in an earlier EP, there was a satisfaction
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Nirmala Negi
Date: 2025.05.16
15:54:31 IST
Reason:
1
hereinafter, EP
Page 1 of 7
CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 2817-2818 of 2020
recorded and hence, the principle of res judicata applies
squarely. The decree-holder had filed a writ petition. The
High Court found that the successive objections filed in
the EP were not maintainable on the principle of res
judicata and dismissed the writ petition and the review
filed too was dismissed. When the writ petition was filed
against the dismissal of an EP filed by the decree holder,
the High Court found the objection filed by the judgment
debtor to be not sustainable and dismissed the writ
petition. We would have normally sent back the matter for
consideration by the High Court but considering the long
pendency of the matter, we are inclined to dispose of the
appeals on merits.
3. Looking at the orders of the Courts below which are
part of the record, the predecessor-in-interest of the
appellants filed Civil Suit No.44 of 1988 against the
respondents herein which was decreed as per Annexure
P-1. The plaintiffs were granted a permanent prohibitory
injunction from interfering with the peaceful possession of
agricultural field No.4810-4811 situated in Village
Page 2 of 7
CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 2817-2818 of 2020
Kharkhari, Tehsil and District Champawat. The
supplementary sale deed dated 22.08.1998, issued in
favour of the father of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and the
husband of defendant No.3 stood cancelled. The EP was
filed by the plaintiffs presumably for obstruction caused,
the first of which was closed as Annexure P-4, when both
the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor were not
present. The judgment-debtor had undertaken in writing
before the Court that they were not causing any
obstruction or interference and the Court assumed that
since the decree-holder was absent, there was full
satisfaction, which was recorded. A further EP is said to
have been filed which was not pressed.
4. The order which gave rise to the instant proceedings
was in the third execution proceedings initiated by the
legal heirs of the plaintiffs who are the appellants herein.
The appellants herein as decree-holders filed EP No.2 of
2012 to which objection was filed under Section 47 of the
2
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , which is at Annexure P-6.
2
the CPC
Page 3 of 7
CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 2817-2818 of 2020
The objection was that the defendants were asserting title
based on the sale deed dated 29.09.1984 and what was
cancelled was only a supplemental deed of 1998. We have
to immediately notice that the defendants, despite notice
having been issued, did not appear in the earlier
proceedings nor did they raise such a contention before
the Court. It was also the submission of the defendants in
the objection filed that they have filed an application
before the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division to set aside
the decree dated 19.07.2000. The Executing Court
considered the rival contentions and found that since the
earlier EP was disposed off on full satisfaction, there is no
scope for a further EP. This was affirmed as per Annexure
P-7 order by the revisional Court in Annexure P-8 which
was challenged before the High Court.
5. The High Court clearly misconstrued the facts and
misunderstood the orders impugned in the writ petition,
and the writ petition filed by the decree holder against the
dismissal of his EP was dismissed finding the objection of
the judgment holder to be unsustainable.
Page 4 of 7
CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 2817-2818 of 2020
6. The decree was one of permanent prohibitory
injunction from interference to the peaceful possession of
the scheduled property. A satisfaction recorded in one EP
would not result in the dismissal of a further EP filed on the
ground of a subsequent interference caused.
7. It is also to be noticed that Article 136 of the Schedule to
the Limitation Act, 1963 provides for limitation, for
execution of any decree other than a decree granting a
mandatory injunction or the order of any Civil Court.
While 12 years is provided as the period of limitation the
proviso specifically provides that there would be no
limitation to enforce or execute a decree granting
perpetual injunction. When a permanent injunction is
granted it operates perpetually against the judgment
debtors, their assignees and successors and it could be
enforced at any time, breach is occasioned. The decree-
holder; their assignees and successors, has a perpetual
right in personam against the decree holders their
assignees and successors.
Page 5 of 7
CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 2817-2818 of 2020
8. We find the order of the High Court to be flawed, and
the order of the executing Court as affirmed by the
revisional Court also to be bad and we set aside the
orders. The EP shall stand restored. Our observations
regarding the claim raised under Section 47 of the CPC is
only prima facie and it shall not govern the consideration
of such objection by the executing Court. The judgment-
debtor will also be entitled to produce before the
executing Court the result of the alleged proceedings
initiated for cancellation of the decree. With the above
observation, we remit the case back to the Court of Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Champaran wherein E.P. No.2 of
2012 would stand restored. The matter shall be
considered afresh in the light of the findings hereinabove,
except those regarding the sustainability of the decree
and the contention raised regarding the cancellation
sought before the same Court; which shall fall for
consideration by the Executing Court.
Page 6 of 7
CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 2817-2818 of 2020
9. The appeals are allowed with the above observations
and reservations.
10. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed
of.
...……….……………………. J.
(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)
………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
MAY 16, 2025.
Page 7 of 7
CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 2817-2818 of 2020
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal Nos…….……. of 2025
(@Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.2817-2818 of 2020)
SARASWATI DEVI & ORS.
APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SANTOSH SINGH & ORS.
RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G E M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeals arise from an order of the High Court,
dismissing a writ petition and from the dismissal of the
review petition too. We cannot but, at the outset, indicate
that the High Court has misconstrued the entire case. The
writ petition was from an order in a revision affirming the
1
rejection of an Execution Petition . The EP was rejected
on the ground that in an earlier EP, there was a satisfaction
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Nirmala Negi
Date: 2025.05.16
15:54:31 IST
Reason:
1
hereinafter, EP
Page 1 of 7
CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 2817-2818 of 2020
recorded and hence, the principle of res judicata applies
squarely. The decree-holder had filed a writ petition. The
High Court found that the successive objections filed in
the EP were not maintainable on the principle of res
judicata and dismissed the writ petition and the review
filed too was dismissed. When the writ petition was filed
against the dismissal of an EP filed by the decree holder,
the High Court found the objection filed by the judgment
debtor to be not sustainable and dismissed the writ
petition. We would have normally sent back the matter for
consideration by the High Court but considering the long
pendency of the matter, we are inclined to dispose of the
appeals on merits.
3. Looking at the orders of the Courts below which are
part of the record, the predecessor-in-interest of the
appellants filed Civil Suit No.44 of 1988 against the
respondents herein which was decreed as per Annexure
P-1. The plaintiffs were granted a permanent prohibitory
injunction from interfering with the peaceful possession of
agricultural field No.4810-4811 situated in Village
Page 2 of 7
CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 2817-2818 of 2020
Kharkhari, Tehsil and District Champawat. The
supplementary sale deed dated 22.08.1998, issued in
favour of the father of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and the
husband of defendant No.3 stood cancelled. The EP was
filed by the plaintiffs presumably for obstruction caused,
the first of which was closed as Annexure P-4, when both
the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor were not
present. The judgment-debtor had undertaken in writing
before the Court that they were not causing any
obstruction or interference and the Court assumed that
since the decree-holder was absent, there was full
satisfaction, which was recorded. A further EP is said to
have been filed which was not pressed.
4. The order which gave rise to the instant proceedings
was in the third execution proceedings initiated by the
legal heirs of the plaintiffs who are the appellants herein.
The appellants herein as decree-holders filed EP No.2 of
2012 to which objection was filed under Section 47 of the
2
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , which is at Annexure P-6.
2
the CPC
Page 3 of 7
CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 2817-2818 of 2020
The objection was that the defendants were asserting title
based on the sale deed dated 29.09.1984 and what was
cancelled was only a supplemental deed of 1998. We have
to immediately notice that the defendants, despite notice
having been issued, did not appear in the earlier
proceedings nor did they raise such a contention before
the Court. It was also the submission of the defendants in
the objection filed that they have filed an application
before the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division to set aside
the decree dated 19.07.2000. The Executing Court
considered the rival contentions and found that since the
earlier EP was disposed off on full satisfaction, there is no
scope for a further EP. This was affirmed as per Annexure
P-7 order by the revisional Court in Annexure P-8 which
was challenged before the High Court.
5. The High Court clearly misconstrued the facts and
misunderstood the orders impugned in the writ petition,
and the writ petition filed by the decree holder against the
dismissal of his EP was dismissed finding the objection of
the judgment holder to be unsustainable.
Page 4 of 7
CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 2817-2818 of 2020
6. The decree was one of permanent prohibitory
injunction from interference to the peaceful possession of
the scheduled property. A satisfaction recorded in one EP
would not result in the dismissal of a further EP filed on the
ground of a subsequent interference caused.
7. It is also to be noticed that Article 136 of the Schedule to
the Limitation Act, 1963 provides for limitation, for
execution of any decree other than a decree granting a
mandatory injunction or the order of any Civil Court.
While 12 years is provided as the period of limitation the
proviso specifically provides that there would be no
limitation to enforce or execute a decree granting
perpetual injunction. When a permanent injunction is
granted it operates perpetually against the judgment
debtors, their assignees and successors and it could be
enforced at any time, breach is occasioned. The decree-
holder; their assignees and successors, has a perpetual
right in personam against the decree holders their
assignees and successors.
Page 5 of 7
CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 2817-2818 of 2020
8. We find the order of the High Court to be flawed, and
the order of the executing Court as affirmed by the
revisional Court also to be bad and we set aside the
orders. The EP shall stand restored. Our observations
regarding the claim raised under Section 47 of the CPC is
only prima facie and it shall not govern the consideration
of such objection by the executing Court. The judgment-
debtor will also be entitled to produce before the
executing Court the result of the alleged proceedings
initiated for cancellation of the decree. With the above
observation, we remit the case back to the Court of Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Champaran wherein E.P. No.2 of
2012 would stand restored. The matter shall be
considered afresh in the light of the findings hereinabove,
except those regarding the sustainability of the decree
and the contention raised regarding the cancellation
sought before the same Court; which shall fall for
consideration by the Executing Court.
Page 6 of 7
CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 2817-2818 of 2020
9. The appeals are allowed with the above observations
and reservations.
10. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed
of.
...……….……………………. J.
(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)
………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
MAY 16, 2025.
Page 7 of 7
CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 2817-2818 of 2020