Introduction:

In the case of Naurang v Lrs of Late Sri Chunnilal & Ors. (2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 282), the Rajasthan High Court delivered a landmark judgment clarifying the scope of executing court powers under Order 21 Rule 32(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) in relation to decrees of prohibitory injunction, emphasizing that where a decree-holder is forcibly dispossessed in defiance of a prohibitory injunction, the executing court is empowered to restore possession to ensure effective compliance of the decree, and this ruling arose in the context of a permanent injunction decree in favor of respondents in relation to an agricultural land, where after nearly a decade, the respondents filed an execution petition alleging that the petitioner had willfully and unlawfully dispossessed them using anti-social elements, thereby rendering the decree nugatory, and in response, the petitioner contended that the decree was limited to a prohibitory injunction and did not direct delivery of possession, arguing that the executing court was incompetent to expand the scope of the decree, and based on these objections, a revision petition was filed before the High Court, thus raising critical questions on the power of civil courts to ensure that injunction decrees are not rendered ineffective by unlawful acts of the judgment-debtor, and on the broader principle of securing efficacy and dignity of judicial adjudication in civil litigation.

Arguments of Both Sides:

Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, it was contended that the permanent injunction merely restrained the judgment-debtor from interfering with the respondents’ possession and did not include any express direction to deliver possession, and therefore, according to the petitioner, the executing court had no jurisdiction to restore possession or forcibly evict the petitioner, and any attempt to enlarge the decree beyond its terms would constitute overreach and violation of the principle of sanctity of decrees; the petitioner further submitted that restoration of possession is not explicitly mentioned in the decree and thus could not be implied as a mandatory or enforceable relief, arguing that the execution court’s powers should be strictly confined to preventing intrusion and restraining prohibited acts, while on the other side, the respondents argued that the decree of prohibitory injunction was rendered wholly ineffective by the petitioner’s willful and unlawful dispossession of the property in violation of the injunction, and they contended that allowing such defiance to go unaddressed would defeat the very purpose of civil adjudication and render judicial pronouncements hollow, emphasizing that Order 21 Rule 32(5) CPC explicitly empowers the executing court to take measures necessary for effective compliance of decrees, including restoration of possession, removal of obstructions, and other steps to secure obedience, and the respondents highlighted that mere penal consequences under contempt jurisdiction may not be sufficient to safeguard their rights and that restoration of possession was the most efficacious and equitable remedy in the circumstances, and they urged the Court to reject the petitioner’s narrow interpretation and uphold the executing court’s power to restore possession to preserve the sanctity of judicial decrees.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Farjand Ali, after hearing contentions and perusing the records, rejected the petitioner’s arguments, holding that the essence of a prohibitory injunction is to preserve possession and restrain intrusion, and the term “injunct” itself denotes that the judgment-debtor shall not interfere with the decree-holder’s possession, and if in defiance thereof, the judgment-debtor forcibly takes possession, the concept of injunction equally encompasses the authority to expel the intruder and restore the rightful party, and referring to Order 21 Rule 32(5) CPC, the Court noted that the executing court is expressly empowered to adopt all measures necessary to secure effective compliance of decrees, including restoring possession where a decree has been rendered nugatory by the willful acts of the judgment-debtor, and emphasized that civil courts cannot be rendered helpless or handicapped in light of deliberate unlawful actions by parties which seek to frustrate adjudication, and that where litigation has already consumed a decade or more, it would be wholly unjust to permit the decree to be defeated by sheer force or illegal acts, observing that the civil court has a bounden duty to ensure that its solemn adjudications are not reduced to illusory formalities, and therefore, the Court held that the objections of the petitioner were without merit, affirming that the executing court had full power to secure obedience of the decree including restoring possession, removing obstructions, and taking any other steps necessary to make the injunction effective, further clarifying that mere penal consequences under contempt jurisdiction cannot always suffice, and in appropriate circumstances, the restoration of possession is the most efficacious mode of enforcement, and by dismissing the revision petition, the High Court underscored the principle that judicial decrees must have practical efficacy, that civil adjudication cannot be rendered nugatory by the unlawful acts of the judgment-debtor, and that the executing court must act proactively to uphold the rights of successful litigants, thereby reiterating that the object of a prohibitory injunction is not only to restrain intrusion but also to protect and preserve possession effectively, maintaining the dignity and authority of civil adjudication in India.