- (1.)This is a petition filed on behalf of the judgment-debtors Prithi Singh and another against the order of the executing Court dated 24th February, 1979.
(2.)Natha Ram and others-decree-holders, filed an application under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the enforcement of the decree for permanent injunction restraining the judgment-debtors from interfering with their possession over the land measuring 74 Kanals 16 Marlas by detention of the judgment-debtor in civil prison and by attachment of his property. The executing Court instead of granting any relief as prayed for by the decree-holder, has ordered for issuance of warrants for restoration of possession to the decree-holder.
(3.)The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the judgment-debtors is that under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the restoration of the property could not be ordered. In support of his contention he has cited a Full Bench judgment of Delhi High Court in Sarup Singh v. Daryodhan Singh, 1972 AIR(Del) 142 It has been held therein that a decree for injunction is normally to be executed by detaining the judgment-debtor in civil prison or by attachment of his property or both under Order 21 Rule 32(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Ordinarily these two coercive measures would constitute an effective remedy to compel the judgment-debtor to obey the decree or order of the Court. If the judgment-debtor fails to vacate the premises in spite of having suffered detention in prison there is no impediment to further exercise of punitive powers under Rule 32(1) and (3) according to law. Issuance of a warrant for delivery of possession in execution of a decree for injunction passed in a suit for mandatory injunction to vacate the disputed premises is not justified either by Rule 32 of Order 21 or Section 51(e) of the Code of Civil Procedure.