Executing Court’s Power to Restore Possession in Violation of Injunction Decrees: A Study of Naurang v. Lrs of Late Sri Chunnilal & Ors.

Author: Advocate Abhishek Jat

The Rajasthan High Court in Naurang v. Lrs of Late Sri Chunnilal & Ors. [2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 282; [2025:RJ-JD:36343], S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 145/2025, decided on 19 August 2025] delivered a significant ruling concerning the scope of the executing court’s jurisdiction under Order XXI Rule 32(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Hon’ble Justice Farjand Ali held that when a decree of permanent injunction is deliberately violated by a judgment-debtor who forcibly takes possession of the decreetal property, the executing court is vested with the authority to direct restoration of possession so as to preserve the efficacy of judicial adjudication.

The dispute in this case pertained to agricultural land situated in Chak No.16 ML, Murabba No.10, Kila Nos.1 to 8, measuring 8 bighas in Sri Ganganagar. Late Chunnilal had instituted Civil Suit No.566/1995 seeking a declaration and permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with possession. The trial court decreed the suit on 12 November 1999 by granting a permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. While the decree was initially set aside by the appellate court in 2003, the Rajasthan High Court in Second Appeal No. 285/2003, decided on 13 December 2013, restored the trial court’s judgment. Nearly a decade later, the decree-holders initiated Execution Petition No.30/2023 alleging that the petitioner, in blatant violation of the decree, had taken unlawful possession of the land with the help of anti-social elements.

The petitioner opposed the execution petition, contending that it suffered from non-joinder of necessary parties and that the decree being one of mere injunction did not contain any direction for delivery of possession. It was argued that the executing court could not enlarge the scope of the decree and that the proper course for the decree-holders was to initiate contempt proceedings. The respondents, on the other hand, argued that restoration of possession was integral to giving meaningful effect to the decree, as the decree-holder had been forcibly dispossessed in breach of the injunction.

The High Court, while rejecting the petitioner’s objections, made significant observations regarding the role and powers of executing courts. Justice Farjand Ali noted that the essence of an injunction decree is to preserve possession and restrain intrusion. Where possession has been unlawfully taken in defiance of such a decree, the very logic of injunction encompasses the authority not only to restrain but also “to expel” the wrongdoer and restore the rightful party into possession. The Court further held that Order XXI Rule 32(5) CPC empowers the executing court to adopt all measures necessary to ensure compliance, including restoration of possession, and that this does not amount to enlarging the decree but rather enforcing it effectively.

It was emphasized that civil courts cannot be rendered helpless or handicapped in the face of wilful disobedience. Mere penal action under contempt jurisdiction may not always suffice; in appropriate cases, restoration of possession becomes the most efficacious and just mode of enforcement. After nearly three decades of litigation, to compel the decree-holders to file a fresh suit for possession would, according to the Court, be wholly unjust and contrary to the settled principles of execution law. Accordingly, the revision petition was dismissed, affirming the executing court’s order.

This judgment carries significant implications for the law of execution. It reinforces the principle that courts must ensure that decrees are not reduced to hollow formalities by subsequent unlawful acts of judgment-debtors. By clarifying that Order XXI Rule 32(5) CPC authorizes restoration of possession in cases of dispossession contrary to an injunction decree, the ruling fortifies the rights of decree-holders and upholds the sanctity of judicial decisions. The decision in Naurang v. Lrs of Late Sri Chunnilal & Ors. thus harmonizes procedural law with equitable justice, ensuring that injunction decrees retain their practical utility and that the authority of the court is preserved.

Disclaimer: This article is intended for informational and academic purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. Readers are encouraged to consult a qualified legal professional for advice regarding specific legal issues or cases. The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not represent the official position of any organization or institution.

Copyright Notice: © 2025 Abhishek Jat, Advocate. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the author. Unauthorized use or reproduction of this material is strictly prohibited and may result in legal action.