Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sumat Kumar Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30287
1 WP-32928-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
ON THE 24th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 32928 of 2025
SUMAT KUMAR JAIN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vikram Pippal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri K.K. Prajapati - Government Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 4 / State
on advance copy.
ORDER
1 .Heard on the question of admission.
2.The instant writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner claiming following reliefs :-
"यािचकाकता ाथना करता है क यािचकाकता ारा तुत रट यािचका वीकार क जाकर ितयािचकाकता . 5 लगायत 7 को िनदिशत कया जावे क वह यायालय तीय यवहार यायाधीश किन ख ड िभतरवार जला वािलयर के िनणय दनांक 30.06.2023 के प रपालन म वयं अथवा कसी य से ह त ेप न करे और ना ह करावे एवं कसी भी कार से परे शानी उ प न न करे ।
अ य यायोिचत सहायता जो माननीय यायालय उिचत समझे यािचकाकता को ितयािचकाकता से दलाई जावे।"
3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that private respondents No. 5 to 7 were interfering into the land belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner instituted a civil suit in the Court of 2nd Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhitarwar, District Gwalior (M.P.) bearing RCS No. 37-A/2016 seeking decree of declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents. The said civil suit came to be allowed vide judgment and decree Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 11/25/2025 5:13:31 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30287 2 WP-32928-2025 dated 30/06/2023, yet the respondents No. 5 to 7 are again and again committed breach of judgment and decree dated 30/06/2023. He further submits that on his representation though Tehsildar had passed an order under section 250 of MPLRC, 1959. Earlier on the complaint of the petitioner, an FIR against the private respondents was also registered, but yet the State authorities are not taking any action in compliance of the judgment and decree in favour of the petitioner and accordingly relief as stated in the petition be granted.
4.No other point has been pressed by learned counsel for the petitioner.
5.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.
6.The issue as to when decree of permanent injunction is breached by the judgment debtor and forcible possession is taken, whether the remedy of decree holder lies under Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Toram Singh vs. Imrat Singh and Ors. reported in 2012 (3) MPLJ 385. Para 8 & 9 of the said judgment Toram Singh (supra) read as under :-
"8. In case the judgment-debtors violate the injunction decree and forcibly take possession, whether the remedy of the decree holders would be to file application under Order 21 Rule 32 of the CPC has been emphatically settled by this Court in the case of Toram Singh vs. Imrat Singh and other, 2012 (3) M.P.L.J, 385 in which it has been held in paragraph No.12 to 16 as under:
"12. A bare perusal of the recommendation shows that the intention was to adopt a wider view to cover prohibitory as well as mandatory injunctions. Interestingly, this recommendation was made by Law Commission even contrary to the views taken by various High Courts before Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 11/25/2025 5:13:31 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30287 3 WP-32928-2025 such recommendation. It was felt necessary to include that Explanation in the interest of justice so that decree-holder should not be driven to a separate suit for getting relief in the nature of enforcement of a decree which will ultimately save his time, labour and money. Once the said recommendation is translated in reality by including it in CPC by way of Explanation, the basic question is whether petitioner can succeed on the strength of existing provision, i.e., Order 21 Rule 32 (1) (5), read with Explanation. In the opinion of this Court, the Executing Court has power and jurisdiction to pass any order to see that the decree is enforced and implemented and it is obeyed by the judgment debtor. Even a decree of a permanent prohibitory injunction needs to be enforced as per the said Explanation. If the judgment debtor had gained possession on the decree-holder's property by violating decree, said judgment debtor needs to be expelled by the Executive Court by exercising powers under Order 21 Rule 32 or by exercising inherent powers under Section 151 of CPC.
13. In my considered opinion, the Court below has given specific finding regarding allotment of land in favour of the petitioner which had not been cancelled, coupled with the finding that the petitioner is in possession. On the strength of these findings, the permanent injunction was granted with further direction to not to disturb the petitioner from the possession. If contrary to aforesaid judgment and decree, judgment debtor had disturbed and gained possession, it amounts to defeating the decree passed by the Court below. Thus, it has to be held that the judgment debtor forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff in violation of order or injunction and took possession of the property. The Executing Court has ample jurisdiction to prevent the decree being flouted and to do justice to the plaintiff by putting back the plaintiff in possession of the property. This Court finds support from the following judgments:--
(i) Ram Charan Sikarwar Vs. Smt. Jogamaya Casu, AIR 1978 Cal 193. (ii) Hari Nandan Agrawal and another Vs. S.N. Pandita, AIR 1975 All 48. (iii) Magna Vs. Rustam, AIR 1963 Raj. 3. (iv) Surjit Pal Vs. Prabir Kumar Sun, AIR 1986 Cal 220. (v) Delhi Development Authority Vs. Kipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd., (1996) 4 SCC 622 = AIR 1996 SC 2005. (vi) Ajayakumar Vs. Damayanthi (2004) 2 Ker Lt 48.
(vii) Century Flour Mills Ltd. Vs. S. Suppiah, AIR 1975 Mad. 270 (FB). (viii) Parukutty Amma Vs. Thankamma Amma, (1988) 1 Ker LT 883. (ix) State of Orissa Vs. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra, AIR 1968 SC 647. (x) Thukalan Poulo Avira Vs. Mar Rasselios Gheevarghese, AIR 1954 TravCo. 117. (xi) Krishna Vs. Joseph Desouza, 1985 Ker LtT 1010 = AIR 1986 Ker 63. (xii) Mohammad Vs.. Mohammed Haji, 1986 Ker LT 134. (xiii) Manohar Lal Chopra Vs. Raj Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal, AIR 1962 SC 527. (xiv) Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 11/25/2025 5:13:31 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30287 4 WP-32928-2025 Hamsa Vs. George, (1995) 2 Ker LT 326 = (1995) AIHC 6153). (xv) Mohd. Idris Vs. Rustam Jehangir Bahuji, (1984) 4 SCC 216 = AIR 1984 SC 1826. (xvi) Thazhapattathillath Krishnan Namboodiri and others Vs. Thazhapattathillath Damodaran Namboodiri (Died) by LR.
and etc., AIR 2005 Ker 328.
14. In AIR 1975 Madras 270 (FB), the Full Bench of the High Court held that Order 39 of CPC should not be considered as placing any limit on the scope of inherent power under Section 151, which are wide and not subject to any limitation. Whenever there is any violation of an order or injunction against party, or something has been done in disobedience, it will be the duty of the Court to put the clock back to set the wrong right and not allow the perpetuation of the wrong doing. The inherent power of the Court will not only be available in such cases, but it is bound to be exercised in that manner in the interest of justice. The same view was taken in Surjit Pal Vs. Prabir Kumar Sun, AIR 1986 Calcutta 220 and Hari Nandan Agrawal and another Vs. S.N. Pandita, AIR 1975 Allahabad 482.
15. I will be failing in my duty, if I do not mention that there were conflicting views expressed in various decisions of various High Courts regarding applicability of Order 21 Rule 32 in respect of decrees of prohibitory injunction. Some of the High Courts took a view that sub-rule (5) of Rule 32 of Order 21 cannot be invoked to enforce a decree of prohibitory injunction, while some Courts have taken contrary view. However, the controversy can be said to be put to rest by bringing the explanation below sub-rule (5). The statement of objects and reasons of CPC (Amendment) Act, 2002, makes the position clear that the Explanation to Rule 32 was added on the basis of the report of Law Commission. Thus, the intention of the Parliament and legal mandate is to implement the prohibitory injunctions in execution proceedings.
16. On the basis of principles of law laid down by various High Courts, there is no doubt that the Executing Court is not justified in closing the matter about delivery of possession on a hyper technical ground that decree for prohibitory injunction cannot be enforced in the manner prayed by the decree holder. The decision is bad in law and if this decision is permitted to stand, it will lead to a situation of lawlessness and the decree holder will be compelled to file another suit for possession. This is not the intention of Order 21 Rule 32 (5) and the Explanation. The duty of the Court is to see that the inherent powers are exercised when needs to be exercised, otherwise the litigant will loose faith in Courts and they may resort to other illegal short cuts than approaching the Civil Court."
9. Thus, when a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction is violated and judgment-debtors gain possession of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 11/25/2025 5:13:31 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30287 5 WP-32928-2025 decree holders property by violating the decree, the judgment-debtors may be expelled by the executing Court by exercising powers under Order 21 Rule 32 of the CPC. It would not be necessary for the decree holder to take any proceedings for seeking recovery of possession of the property or to institute a fresh suit. The same can very well be done in the proceedings instituted by the decree holders by the executing Court itself."
7.In view of the proposition laid down by this Court and availability of remedy under Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC to the petitioner, admission to the instant writ petition is declined. The petitioner is set at liberty to avail the remedy available to him before the Executing Court.
8.With the aforesaid, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.
9.All pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.
(AMIT SETH) JUDGE Durgekar Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 11/25/2025 5:13:31 PM