To Injunct Also Means To Expel — Rajasthan High Court Upholds Restoration of Possession Under Order XXI Rule 32(5) CPC for Violation of Injunction

“A Civil Court Cannot Be Rendered Powerless Against Wilful Defiance of Its Decrees” — In a significant judgment Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur, through Justice Farjand Ali, dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order for execution of a prohibitory injunction decree by restoring possession under Order XXI Rule 32(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The Court made a pivotal observation: “If, in defiance thereof, possession is forcibly taken, then the concept of injunction equally encompasses the authority ‘to expel’ and to restore the rightful party back into possession.”

This ruling affirms the enforceability of injunction decrees through possession restoration where the judgment-debtor wilfully violates the decree.

The roots of the dispute trace back to 1995, when Chunnilal, predecessor of the respondents, filed Civil Suit No.566/1995 before the Civil Judge, Sri Ganganagar, seeking declaration and permanent injunction to protect possession of agricultural land measuring 8 bighas.

The suit resulted in a partial decree on 12.11.1999, restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession until the decision of the allotment proceedings. Though this decree was set aside by the first appellate court in 2003, the High Court restored it in 2013 in Second Appeal No.285/2003.

After a prolonged hiatus, the decree-holders (legal heirs of Chunnilal) filed Execution Petition No.30/2023, alleging that the petitioner (judgment-debtor) forcibly took possession of the land in violation of the decree.

The executing court, through order dated 09.07.2025, directed restoration of possession under Order XXI Rule 32(5). The judgment-debtor challenged this in Civil Revision Petition No.145/2025.

The core objection was that the injunction decree did not contain a direction for delivery of possession, and therefore restoration was beyond the scope of execution.

The petitioner contended:

• The execution was bad for non-joinder of other judgment-debtors.

• The decree did not direct possession to be delivered, and hence could not be enforced via possession.

• The proper course was to initiate contempt proceedings, not execution.

• The court was expanding the scope of the decree impermissibly.

Justice Farjand Ali firmly rejected these objections, holding: “Where a decree of prohibitory injunction has been rendered nugatory by the wilful and unlawful act of the judgment-debtor… the executing court is vested with the power under Order XXI Rule 32(5) CPC to direct measures necessary to secure compliance, including restoration of possession.”

The Court emphasized that a decree of injunction is meant to prevent intrusion, and if violated, the remedy of restoring possession is implicit in its enforcement:

“The essence of an injunction decree is to preserve possession… if, in defiance thereof, possession is forcibly taken, then the concept of injunction equally encompasses the authority ‘to expel’.”

The judgment noted that mere penal consequences through contempt would be insufficient to undo unlawful dispossession and that restoration is a more effective enforcement mechanism.

“To require the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit for recovery of possession… would be wholly unjust and improper.”

The Court clarified a long-contested issue in execution jurisprudence — whether a prohibitory injunction decree can lead to restoration of possession in execution.

It answered in the affirmative, observing:

“Order XXI Rule 32(5) CPC clarifies that where a decree of prohibitory injunction is rendered nugatory… the court may adopt all measures essential to secure obedience, including the restoration of possession.”

Further, the Court asserted the duty of the civil court to enforce its own orders meaningfully:

“The civil court cannot be rendered helpless or handicapped in the face of such conduct… it is under a bounden duty to act so that its solemn adjudication is not reduced to an illusory formality.”

The Rajasthan High Court has reaffirmed that injunctions are not toothless decrees and courts must uphold the integrity of their orders by taking corrective action, even if not expressly mentioned in the decree, when violated with impunity.

The ruling ensures that restoration of possession is within the scope of execution proceedings, not merely contempt, when injunctions are defied. This provides powerful support to decree-holders who otherwise risk losing effective relief due to deliberate acts by judgment-debtors.

Date of Decision: 19 August 2025