Executing courts may restore possession when judgment-debtors violate a decree of permanent injunction.

The petitioners, who were judgment-debtors, invoked Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the Executing Court’s order dated 18.04.2026 issuing a warrant of possession against them.

The decree-holders’ suit for protection of possession over the suit land had been decreed, restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession; the decree was stated to have been affirmed by the Appellate Court.

In execution proceedings under Order XXI Rules 32 and 35 CPC, the decree-holders alleged that the judgment-debtors had violated the decree by encroaching upon the land and constructing a house. The judgment-debtors contended that the construction pre-dated the decree.

A Tehsildar appointed as Local Commissioner reported that the decree-holders’ house occupied 0.06 acre, while the remaining portion was in possession of the judgment-debtors, who had constructed a house thereon.

The Executing Court found that the encroachment and construction had been carried out after the decree and despite an interim order dated 04.02.2012 restraining further construction.

Whether the Executing Court had jurisdiction under Order XXI Rule 32, Order XXI Rule 35, and/or Section 151 CPC to remove the judgment-debtors from the property and restore possession to the decree-holders where the decree of permanent injunction had allegedly been violated by subsequent encroachment and construction.

Whether the Executing Court was required to first detain the judgment-debtors in civil prison or attach their property before issuing a warrant of possession.

The Court applied Order XXI Rule 32 CPC, which empowers the executing court to enforce a decree for injunction through coercive measures where the judgment-debtor wilfully disobeys it, and Order XXI Rule 35 CPC concerning delivery of possession.

The Court also relied on the inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC to prevent the decree from being defeated and to secure the ends of justice.

Following Toran Singh v. Imrat Singh and Others, 2012 (3) MPLJ 385, the Court held that where judgment-debtors obtain possession of the decree-holder’s property in violation of a decree of permanent injunction, the Executing Court may evict them and restore possession to the decree-holder.

The remedies of detention in civil prison, attachment of property, and issuance of a possession warrant are discretionary and need not necessarily be followed in a fixed sequence.

The decree established the decree-holders’ title and possession and restrained the judgment-debtors from interfering with it.

The Local Commissioner’s report, together with the Executing Court’s findings, established that the judgment-debtors had made substantial changes and constructed upon the suit land after the decree and even after the order dated 04.02.2012 prohibiting further construction.

Such conduct amounted to interference with and defeat of the decree.

Applying Toran Singh, the High Court held that the Executing Court possessed jurisdiction to undo the violation by restoring the decree-holders to possession under Order XXI Rule 32 or Section 151 CPC.

The objection that attachment or civil imprisonment had to precede delivery of possession was rejected because the CPC does not prescribe those measures as mandatory preliminary steps or require their adoption in any particular order.

It further held that prior attachment of property or detention in civil prison was not mandatory before issuing the warrant of possession.

Finding no error in the impugned order dated 18.04.2026, the Court affirmed it and dismissed the miscellaneous petition.