Naurang v. LRs of Late Sri Chunnilal & Ors., 2025
The Court took a purposive approach to interpret Order 21 Rule 32(5) CPC, expanding the remedy to include restoration of possession where needed.
Judgement Details
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Date of Decision
23 August 2025
Judges
Justice Farjand Ali
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
-
A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction was passed in favour of the respondents concerning agricultural land.
-
Nearly a decade later, the decree-holder (respondent) filed an execution petition, alleging that the judgment-debtor (petitioner) had forcibly dispossessed them by using anti-social elements.
-
The petitioner objected, claiming that the original decree only granted injunction (not possession), and therefore the executing court lacked jurisdiction to order restoration of possession.
-
The executing court rejected these objections.
-
The petitioner then filed a revision petition before the Rajasthan High Court challenging this order.
Issues
-
Can the executing court direct restoration of possession under a decree only for prohibitory injunction?
-
Does Order 21 Rule 32(5) CPC empower the court to go beyond the textual scope of the decree to enforce its true effect?
-
What is the remedy when the injunction decree is violated by dispossessing the decree-holder?
Held
-
The Executing courts are not helpless when an injunction decree is rendered nugatory by wilful disobedience.
-
Order 21 Rule 32(5) CPC permits restoration of possession if the judgment-debtor unlawfully evicts the decree-holder.
-
The decree of injunction includes the right to be protected in possession, and any unlawful interference or dispossession is a direct contempt of that decree.
-
Mere punishment under contempt law is not sufficient restoration is a legitimate remedy.
-
The Court must protect its own decree and prevent judicial orders from becoming meaningless.
Analysis
-
This judgment strengthens the enforcement mechanism of injunction decrees, closing a procedural gap often exploited by judgment-debtors.
-
The Court took a purposive approach to interpret Order 21 Rule 32(5) CPC, expanding the remedy to include restoration of possession where needed.
-
Rejected hyper-technical arguments that a decree must explicitly provide for possession to enable its restoration.
-
Asserted the role of courts in preserving the sanctity of judicial decisions, particularly against wilful disobedience.
-
Reinforces the principle that equity and justice cannot be defeated by procedural manipulations or muscle power.
-
Sent a strong message against delay and abuse in execution proceedings, particularly where cases drag on for decades.