Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court
Satisfaction Recorded In Execution Petition Arising Out Of Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Won't Result In Dismissal Of Further Petition Filed On Ground Of Subsequent Interference: Supreme Court
|The Appeals before the Supreme Court challenged the dismissal of a writ petition and a review petition.
While restoring an Execution Petition, the Supreme Court has explained that a satisfaction recorded in one Execution Petition arising out of permanent prohibitory injunction would not result in the dismissal of a further Petition filed on the ground of a subsequent interference caused.
The Bench further held that when a permanent injunction is granted, it operates perpetually against the judgment debtors, their assignees, successors, and it could be enforced at any time, breach is occasioned.
The Appeals before the Apex Court arose from an order of the High Court, dismissing a writ petition and a review petition.
The Division Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran said, “The decree was one of permanent prohibitory injunction from interference to the peaceful possession of the scheduled property. A satisfaction recorded in one EP would not result in the dismissal of a further EP filed on the ground of a subsequent interference caused.”
AOR Nishit Agrawal represented the Appellants while AOR Shoumendu Mukherji represented the Respondents.
Factual Background
The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants filed a Civil Suit against the respondents, which was decreed and the plaintiffs were granted a permanent prohibitory injunction from interfering with the peaceful possession of the agricultural field. The supplementary sale deed of 1998 issued in favour of the father of defendants 1 and 2 and the husband of third defendant stood cancelled. The EP was filed by the plaintiffs for obstruction caused when both the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor were not present. The judgment-debtor had undertaken that they were not causing any obstruction. The Court assumed that since the decree-holder was absent, there was satisfaction, which was recorded.
A further EP was filed, which was not pressed. The order which gave rise to the proceedings was the third execution proceedings initiated by the legal heirs of the plaintiffs, who were the appellants before the Apex Court. The appellants, as decree-holders filed the EP to which objection was filed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The objection was that the defendants were asserting title based on the sale deed of 1984, and what was cancelled was only a supplemental deed of 1998. The Executing Court found that since the earlier EP was disposed of on full satisfaction, there was no scope for a further EP. This was affirmed by the revisional Court which was challenged before the High Court.
Reasoning
The Bench was of the view that the High Court clearly misconstrued the facts and misunderstood the orders impugned in the writ petition. The writ petition filed by the decree holder against the dismissal of his EP was dismissed, finding the objection of the judgment holder to be unsustainable. As per the Bench, a satisfaction recorded in one EP would not result in the dismissal of a further EP filed on the ground of a subsequent interference caused.
Coming to the issue of limitation, the Bench explained that Article 136 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 provides for limitation for execution of any decree other than a decree granting a mandatory injunction or the order of any Civil Court. “While 12 years is provided as the period of limitation, the proviso specifically provides that there would be no limitation to enforce or execute a decree granting perpetual injunction. When a permanent injunction is granted it operates perpetually against the judgment debtors, their assignees and successors, and it could be enforced at any time, breach is occasioned. The decreeholder, their assignees and successors, has a perpetual right in personam against the decreeholders, their assignees and successors”, it said.
Finding the order of the High Court to be flawed, and the order of the executing Court as affirmed by the revisional Court also to be bad, the Bench restored the EP while setting aside the impugned order.
Allowing the appeal, the Bench held, “With the above observation, we remit the case back to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Champaran wherein E.P. No.2 of 2012 would stand restored. The matter shall be considered afresh in the light of the findings hereinabove, except those regarding the sustainability of the decree and the contention raised regarding the cancellation sought before the same Court; which shall fall for consideration by the Executing Court.”
Cause Title: Saraswati Devi & Ors. Appellant(S) Versus Santosh Singh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 715)
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR Nishit Agrawal, Advocates Sankalp Suman, Kanishka Mittal
Respondents: AOR Shoumendu Mukherji, Advocates Kusum Sapna Chhetri, Megha Sharma, Aniruddha Ghosh, Anshuman Mohanty