A judgment debtor cannot relitigate in execution defences rejected when the injunction decree was passed.

The petitioner, judgment debtor No. 2, challenged an order of the Executing Court in E.P. No. 41/2012. That court had found that she violated a perpetual injunction decree in O.S. No. 56/1994 and ordered attachment of her properties, subject to the decree holder identifying them.

In the original suit, the petitioner had disputed the location, identity and boundaries of the suit property; the Trial Court considered and rejected those objections before granting the injunction.

During the writ proceedings, the petitioner filed an affidavit admitting the decree holder’s ownership and the boundaries of the property, and undertook not to interfere with the decree holder’s possession and enjoyment.

1. Whether the Executing Court’s finding of disobedience and direction for attachment could stand where the petitioner sought to re-agitate objections already rejected in the original suit

2. Whether the impugned execution order should be set aside in light of the petitioner’s affidavit admitting the property’s identity, boundaries and the decree holder’s possession, and her undertaking not to interfere

The Court applied the principle that issues determined in the original suit and embodied in a decree cannot be re-opened by a judgment debtor in execution proceedings; the decree must be obeyed unless set aside through appropriate proceedings.

It also treated the petitioner’s clear and categorical undertaking to the Court as binding and required her to abide by the perpetual injunction decree.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s objections to the suit property’s location, identity and boundaries had already been considered and rejected in O.S. No. 56/1994, and found that she was attempting to raise the same defence in execution.

The Executing Court had relied on that conduct in finding disobedience and directing attachment.

However, in the writ proceedings the petitioner admitted the decree holder’s ownership, the property’s boundaries and possession, and undertook not to interfere. The Court accepted the undertaking and concluded that the impugned order need not survive, while preserving the petitioner’s obligation to comply with the injunction decree.

The petitioner was directed not to interfere with the decree holders’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the specified property, and her undertaking was declared binding as an undertaking to the Court.