Vague Decree of Injunction Can’t Be Executed by Attaching Machines: Rajasthan High Court Strikes Down Execution Order

“Executing Court Cannot Travel Beyond the Decree Nor Enforce an Injunction Without Specificity” – In a significant pronouncement, the Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench), through Justice Anand Sharma, held that a vague and indeterminate injunction decree cannot be enforced by attaching property, particularly when the decree does not specify the object sought to be restrained. High Court allowed objections raised under Section 47 of the CPC by the judgment-debtors and quashed the order maintaining attachment of one of their manufacturing machines.

The Court ruled that the permanent injunction decree passed in 2017 was incapable of execution, as it lacked precision in identifying the “design” it purported to protect. Consequently, the executing court had erred in attaching machinery which was neither identified nor declared infringing under the terms of the decree.

“A Decree Must Be Executed As It Stands – Not As It Ought To Have Been Passed”

The dispute arose from a 2017 ex parte decree of permanent injunction obtained by M/s Anondita Healthcare against Faiz Mohammad and others, restraining them from disclosing the design of a surgical gloves machine, allegedly developed by the decree-holder. The design, however, was never detailed in the pleadings or decree.

In execution, Anondita sought attachment of two machines from the factory of Sware Healthcare, claiming they had been manufactured in violation of the decree. The executing court attached both machines, but upon objections by Sware Healthcare, one was released. Dissatisfied, both parties filed rival revision petitions before the High Court.

Justice Anand Sharma noted that while executing courts are empowered under Section 47 CPC to decide issues relating to execution, discharge, or satisfaction of a decree, they cannot rewrite, enlarge or clarify a vague decree. “Where a decree is vague and lacks enforceable content, no amount of interpretation or evidence can cure its foundational defect,” the Court observed.

“A Photocopy of an Unproven Agreement Cannot Form Basis of Execution”

A central controversy related to an alleged agreement dated 29.01.2015, on the basis of which one of the machines was ordered to be released by the executing court. The High Court categorically held that the said agreement was unproven, and no application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act had been allowed permitting its admission as secondary evidence.

Quoting from the judgment: “An unexhibited document does not acquire evidentiary status merely because it is referred to or confronted to a witness during cross-examination, in the absence of its formal proof and admissibility being judicially determined.”

The Court emphasized that the executing court’s reliance on an unproved document amounted to a material irregularity and jurisdictional error, vitiating the attachment and release orders.

“Executing Court Cannot Adjudicate New Rights or Conduct Retrials”

Striking at the heart of the execution order, the Court ruled that the executing court had overstepped its jurisdiction by basing attachment on a subsequent agreement dated 20.06.2020, which was not part of the decree.

“Whether any subsequent agreement violates the earlier agreement is a matter requiring independent adjudication and cannot be presumed in execution proceedings,” the Court ruled.

Further, the Court observed: “The decree must either be executed as it stands or not at all unless the court which passed it alters or modifies it. The executing court cannot assume powers it does not have.”

Vagueness in the Decree Defeats Its Executability

A crucial finding of the Court was that the decree of permanent injunction, while restraining disclosure of a machine “design,” failed to define the design, technical specifications, dimensions, or unique identifiers of the protected object.

The Court warned: “A prohibitory decree, to be executable, must define with precision the act or conduct that is intended to be prohibited. Where the decree is vague and leaves the scope of restraint indeterminate, the executing court cannot enforce it without engaging in speculation, which is impermissible.”

Thus, the execution itself was rendered legally untenable.

Revisional Jurisdiction is Not an Appellate Substitute

Dismissing the decree-holder’s argument for introducing new documents at the revision stage, the Court reiterated that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is not meant to reappreciate evidence or cure evidentiary lacunae. Applications by Anondita Healthcare to place new documents were rejected outright as misconceived.

The Court concluded that:

• The permanent injunction decree dated 09.02.2017 was vague and unenforceable in its present form.

• The executing court exceeded its jurisdiction by attaching machines without clear connection to the decree.

• The order maintaining attachment of one machine was set aside.

• Both machines were ordered to be released forthwith.

• The decree-holder’s revision petition was dismissed, and the judgment-debtors' petition was allowed.

Date of Decision: 24 January 2026