Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

ISSUES TO BE DECIDED

5. On the backdrop of the above facts and on the canvass of the order passed by the Executing Court, the following issues need consideration:-

(i) Whether the detention of the judgment-debtor in civil prison for having committed breach of the decree of permanent injunction tantamounts to satisfaction of the decree obtained by the decree-holder? and

(ii) Whether the Executing Court is helpless to implement decree even if judgment-debtor keeps on committing repeated and successive breaches thereof?"

10. A distinction has to be drawn between the mode of enforcing decree on one hand and actual satisfaction thereof, sentencing a person to jail is a "mode of enforcement". It is not a mode of satisfaction of the decree. The whole purpose of detaining a person in civil prison is to compel a person liable to obey the mandate of a decree who refused to comply with the terms of the decree without satisfactory cause. The purpose of sentencing him to jail is not to wipe out his liability to comply with the decree. A sentence of jail or detention of a person in civil prison, is no substitute for compliance of the decree. It is not a mode of discharging or satisfying a decree. The compliance of the decree can only be sought by resorting to these penal actions. The liability or obligation flowing from the decree cannot be taken to have been discharged by detaining a person liable to comply with the decree, to jail. At the cost of repetition, it may be stated that it is only a mode or method of implementation of a decree and/or mandate flowing therefrom. No other view is possible. That is the reason why I am inclined to set aside the impugned Order.

12. With regard to the execution and/or implementation of the decree of permanent injunction is concerned, it appears that the civil imprisonment had no effect on the judgment-debtor. He was detained in civil prison for fifteen days. He suffered the said detention, but did not amend his attitude and ventured to commit successive breaches of the decree of injunction. The effective order against him could be by attachment of his property and in the event of persistent breach and the sale thereof. If no property is available for attachment, and if the judgment-debtor persists in committing deliberate and wilful breach of the permanent injunction, he may again be detained in civil prison, depending upon the gravity of the breach committed by him. Nobody can be allowed to take law in his own hands. Rule of law must prevail. The Executing Court is not helpless to take action against the sons in properly constituted proceedings if the Executing Court finds that the sons of the judgment-debtor are abetting the breach of the decree for permanent injunction. If courts fail to get their orders implemented, the people will loose faith in the Judiciary. The Executing Court is directed to deal with the situation with stern hands and prevent breach of the decree of permanent injunction.