The Supreme Court, in a recent ruling, emphasized that the imprisonment of a judgment debtor is a drastic step and should be exercised only when there is clear proof of wilful disobedience of a court decree. The Court stressed that failing to enforce such orders in appropriate cases could weaken the authority of judicial institutions.
"Imprisonment of a judgment-debtor is no doubt a drastic step and would prevent him from moving anywhere he likes, but once it is proved that he had wilfully and with impunity disobeyed an order of injunction, the court owes it to itself to make the judgment-debtor realise that it does not pay to defy a decree of a court." – Supreme Court
The ruling was delivered by a Bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, who examined the relevant provisions under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), particularly Order 21, Rule 32.
The Supreme Court highlighted the significance of Order 21, Rule 32 of the CPC, which states:
"Where the party against whom a decree for an injunction has been passed has had an opportunity of obeying the decree and has wilfully failed to obey it, the decree may be enforced by his detention in the civil prison."
The Court explained that the power to imprison a judgment debtor serves as a procedural tool for decree-holders facing difficulty in enforcing judgments. However, before ordering detention, the Court must ensure that the debtor had a clear opportunity to comply but chose not to.
"A decree for injunction passed against a party could be enforced by his detention in a civil prison, if he has wilfully failed to obey such decree despite having had an opportunity of obeying it."
The judgment emphasized that merely asserting disobedience is insufficient. The executing court must establish that the judgment debtor was not only bound by the decree but also aware of it and had intentionally defied it.
Read Also:- Violation of Judicial Orders: Is Imprisonment the Only Solution? Supreme Court's Important Interpretation
The Court stated that the person seeking execution of an injunction decree must present concrete evidence proving that the judgment debtor deliberately disobeyed the court’s order.
"The onus of placing materials before the executing Court for enabling it to record a finding that the person against whom the order of detention is sought has had an opportunity of obeying the decree but has wilfully disobeyed it, lies on the person seeking such order of detention."
The judgment clarified that Order 21, Rule 11-A of the CPC mandates that an application seeking the detention of a judgment debtor must include an affidavit specifying the grounds. The provision is mandatory, meaning the court cannot order imprisonment unless this requirement is met. If the affidavit is missing, the court must give the decree-holder a chance to submit one.
Read Also:- Can a Commercial Suit Be Dismissed Under O VII R 11 CPC for Skipping Pre-Institution Mediation? Supreme Court to Decide
The case involved Bhudev Mallick Alias Bhudeb Mallick Vs Ranajit Ghoshal (Civil Appeal No. 2248 of 2025). The original plaintiffs (legal heirs of the respondents) had obtained a decree for possession and permanent injunction nearly 40 years ago. However, they filed an execution case much later, alleging that the appellants were interfering with their peaceful possession of the property.
Since the appellants failed to appear in court, the executing court proceeded with an ex parte order, rejecting their objections. Consequently, it ordered:
The appellants' arrest and detention for 30 days in civil prison.
Attachment of their property as per the law.
Upon appeal, the High Court upheld this order, stating that no jurisdictional error was committed. However, the Supreme Court, upon review, found serious flaws in both the executing court’s and High Court’s decisions.
Each Breach of Injunction Is Actionable
The Court clarified that every instance of violating an injunction order constitutes a separate breach.
“Each breach of injunction is independent and actionable in law, making the judgment-debtor answerable. Where there are successive breaches of decree, the judgment-debtor can be dealt with on every such breach, and the doctrine of res judicata has no application.”
Execution of Perpetual Injunction Not Limited by Time :
The Court referred to Section 136 of the Limitation Act, which states that the enforcement of a decree for a perpetual injunction is not restricted by any limitation period.
Absence of Proof of Wilful Disobedience :
The Court found that the executing court had not conducted a proper inquiry into whether the appellants had deliberately violated the decree.
"The executing court proceeded merely on the basis of the assertions made by the respondents without any further inquiry into the matter."
Failure of the High Court to Exercise Supervisory Jurisdiction :
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court’s handling of the matter, emphasizing that it failed to recognize the executing court’s errors.
"We are a bit disappointed with the manner in which the High Court dealt with the present litigation. The High Court merely stated that no jurisdictional error was found, without analyzing the gross errors in the executing court’s order."
Read Also:- Supreme Court Declares Jharkhand's 2010 Recruitment Process Illegal And Nullifies Entire Process
Trial Court Denied Fair Hearing to the Appellants :
The Court also pointed out that the trial court did not give the appellants an opportunity to present their case before ordering their detention.
"The court should have been more considerate while rejecting the written objections. It could have provided one more opportunity before passing the detention order."
After analyzing the case, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders issued by the executing court and the High Court. However, it clarified that the decree holders could file a fresh application if the judgment debtors again attempted to interfere with their property rights.
Additionally, the Court directed:
The Registry to circulate this judgment to all High Courts.
High Courts to ensure District Courts follow the principles laid down in this ruling.
