The courtroom was quiet on Thursday morning when Justice Sashikanta Mishra finally dictated the order, but the message was unmistakably firm. After over four decades of litigation and multiple rounds of objections, the Orissa High Court refused to interfere with orders allowing eviction of a judgment debtor who, the court said, was clearly trying to delay enforcement of a long-settled decree. The case, rooted in a 1981 civil suit over land in Cuttack, once again highlighted how winning a decree is often only half the battle.
Background
The dispute traces back to Title Suit No. 148 of 1981, filed by Krushna Swain seeking declaration of ownership, confirmation of possession, and a permanent injunction over a specific parcel of land. The trial court ruled in his favour in 1983. That verdict survived an appeal, and later, a second appeal before the High Court itself, finally attaining closure in 2008.
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Declines Arbitration Route in New India Assurance–HDFC Bank Lease Dispute
Despite this, execution became a saga of its own. The decree holders approached the executing court in 2012 alleging that the judgment debtor had forcibly entered the land after the appeals were exhausted. What followed was a series of objections under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code-three in all-each challenging the very maintainability of the execution. Every one of them was dismissed, including a civil revision before the district court in January 2023.
Still dissatisfied, the judgment debtors knocked on the High Court’s door again under Article 227 of the Constitution, arguing that since the original decree only confirmed possession and granted injunction, it could not be enforced through eviction.
Read also:- Supreme Court Defers Hearing in Rajneesh Kumar Pandey Case, Allows States to Continue
Court’s Observations
Justice Mishra was not persuaded. The court noted that the repeated objections were essentially on the same grounds and could not be entertained endlessly. Referring to the practical realities of civil litigation, the bench observed that execution proceedings are often misused to frustrate decrees rather than comply with them.
“The judgment debtor does not even deny entering into possession,” the court remarked in substance, adding that raising technical pleas at this stage was nothing but an abuse of process. The judge pointed out that all three courts had consistently confirmed the decree holder’s possession and restrained interference. If, after losing at every stage, a party forcibly occupies the land, the only meaningful way to enforce the decree is by removing that obstruction.
On limitation, the court clarified that decrees granting permanent injunction are not hit by the usual twelve-year bar. Quoting the Limitation Act, the bench underlined that enforcement of a perpetual injunction has no fixed time limit, especially when interference occurs later.
The argument that an injunction decree cannot result in delivery of possession was also rejected. The High Court explained that the decree holder was not seeking anything beyond the decree but merely its effective enforcement. Forcing the decree holder to file a fresh suit would, in the court’s words, “tantamount to nullifying” judgments already upheld up to the second appeal stage.
Read also:- Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects State's Land Acquisition Appeal, Upholds Enhanced
Decision
Finding no fault with the reasoning of either the executing court or the revisional court, the High Court dismissed the petition. The bench directed the executing court to proceed with the execution and conclude it expeditiously, preferably within two months. With that, a dispute born in the early 1980s appears, at long last, to be moving towards its legal end.
Case Title: Kalyani Swain & Others v. Bijay Kumar Swain & Others
Case No.: CMP No. 153 of 2024
Case Type: Civil Miscellaneous Petition (Execution-related dispute under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution)
Decision Date: 19 December 2025