Harihar Pandey vs Mangala Prasad Singh And Ors. on 24 May, 1985
10 EXA.99/2011-CHS.299/2002-
S.2824/1985 A/W. EXA.241/2011-CHS.299/2002-S.2824/1985 - Judgment
10 years after the decree was passed the plaintiff applied for
enforcing the decree by attachment of the construction,
removal of certain bamboo clumps and detention of the
defendant in civil prison. The judgment debtor contended
that the compromise was merely an agreement which
declared the respective rights of the parties and was hence
not capable of execution. It was contended that injunction
was not specifically granted. However because the suit was
for injunction which was decreed the Allahabad High Court
held that there was a self inducted injunction. It was
observed in paragraph 9 of the judgment that where the
parties agreed for a future mode of conduct either by doing
something or by restraining to do something and obtain a
decree in those terms it would be a self inducted injunction
against oneself. The Court observed that the real intent of the
parties has to be looked into and if the mandate in the
compromise was intended to be enforced as an injunction the
decree must be held to be one for injunction. For that
purpose the petition cannot be interpreted strictly and an
allowance must always made for infirmity of expression in the
compromise petition (consent terms). It was observed that in
that case the defendant undertook to give an alternative
passage and to make it usable. They agreed to desist from
obstructing it in any manner. The Court held that it was not a
mere declaratory decree, but that the decree in fact granted
::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2015 23:59:18 :::
11 EXA.99/2011-CHS.299/2002-
S.2824/1985 A/W. EXA.241/2011-CHS.299/2002-S.2824/1985 - Judgment
an injunction by agreement and was hence executable.