Executing Courts May Order Restoration Upon Proof of Post-Decree Breach of an Injunction Decree.

Mast Ram obtained a decree declaring his right to irrigate his land through a specified sub-water channel and permanently restraining Kishore Chand from obstructing the flow of water

In execution, Mast Ram alleged that the judgment-debtors had dismantled the channel after the decree; the judgment-debtors denied disobedience, although they did not dispute the dismantling allegation itself

The Executing Court ordered attachment of the judgment-debtors’ property for three months but did not direct restoration of the channel.

Mast Ram challenged the refusal to order restoration, while the judgment-debtors challenged the attachment

1. Whether the Executing Court could order restoration of the sub-water channel in execution of the decree for permanent injunction, if the channel had been dismantled after the decree.

2. Whether the order attaching the judgment-debtors’ property was sustainable without first determining whether they had disobeyed the decree.

Order XXI Rule 32 CPC provides for enforcement of injunction decrees through measures including attachment of property; as explained in Bhudev Mallick alias Bhudeb Mallick v. Ranajit Goshal, 2025 INSC 175, the rule may also permit restoration where a decree-holder has been dispossessed after the decree.

Coercive measures require a finding that the judgment-debtor wilfully disobeyed or failed to comply with the decree.

The judgment also referred to Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963, including its proviso that execution of a decree granting perpetual injunction is not subject to a limitation period.

The decree had attained finality, so the judgment-debtors could not deny the existence of the channel recognised by it.

However, the allegation of post-decree dismantling rested only on Mast Ram’s oral statement, leaving the relevant fact unascertained.

The Executing Court should therefore have obtained an on-site assessment by a revenue agency rather than refusing restoration without investigating the alleged change in the channel.

Because that factual inquiry was also material to determining disobedience and the propriety of attachment, the High Court set aside the order and remitted the matter for investigation and fresh consideration.

The matter was remanded with a direction to appoint a Local Commissioner to ascertain whether the sub-water channel had been dismantled and then proceed in accordance with law, particularly in light of Bhudev Mallick.

The parties were directed to appear before the Executing Court on 16 October 2026, and the execution application was directed to be decided afresh within four months.