The Supreme Court recently emphasized that before ordering the imprisonment of a judgment debtor, courts must ensure that the debtor has willfully disobeyed the order. The judgment highlights that imprisonment should be the last resort and only be exercised when the debtor’s defiance is evident.
"Imprisonment of a judgment debtor is indeed a drastic step that curtails their freedom, but when willful disobedience is proven, the court must enforce its authority to uphold the rule of law." - Supreme Court
The court referred to Order 21, Rule 32 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), which states that a person violating an injunction order can be detained in civil prison. However, before passing such an order, the court must confirm that the judgment debtor had an opportunity to comply but intentionally refused to do so.
"A court must verify that the judgment debtor had a fair chance to obey the order. Arrest without such verification is a serious legal flaw." - Supreme Court
The case in question dates back to 1965, when a title suit was filed regarding property possession. A permanent injunction was granted to prevent the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful enjoyment of the property. However, in 2017, almost 40 years later, the decree holders filed an execution petition, claiming that the defendants had violated the injunction.
1976: Subordinate Court in Hooghly granted a permanent injunction.
2017: The decree holders filed an execution petition, alleging breach of injunction.
2019: The lower court ordered the arrest of the judgment debtors and the attachment of their property.
2025: Supreme Court reviewed the case and ruled that proper procedural steps were not followed.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Declares Jharkhand's 2010 Recruitment Process Illegal And Nullifies Entire Process
The Supreme Court stressed that imprisonment should not be the automatic response to non-compliance. Instead, courts must carefully evaluate whether the order was willfully violated.
"Before issuing an arrest order, courts must provide the accused party a fair opportunity to present their defense." - Supreme Court
1. Investigation Before Ordering Imprisonment: The court referred to Order 21, Rule 11-A of the CPC, which mandates that any application for imprisonment must clearly state the grounds for arrest, supported by an affidavit. In this case, such an affidavit was missing, making the execution order legally flawed.
"An affidavit stating the reasons for arrest is essential. Without it, a detention order cannot be sustained." - Supreme Court
2. No Limitation Period for Permanent Injunctions: The Supreme Court clarified that permanent injunctions have no limitation period for enforcement. If a party violates such an injunction at any time, legal action can be taken.
"Each instance of injunction violation is a fresh cause of action, making the judgment debtor accountable every time they breach the decree." - Supreme Court
3. High Court’s Error in Judgment :The Supreme Court criticized the High Court’s approach, stating that it failed to recognize significant legal flaws in the execution order.
"We are disappointed with how the High Court handled this case. Simply stating that there is no jurisdictional error does not justify ignoring procedural lapses." - Supreme Court
The Supreme Court ruled that the execution order was flawed and should be set aside. It emphasized that courts must ensure due process is followed before issuing arrest or property attachment orders.
However, it also upheld the decree holders' right to seek execution again if they could present substantial evidence of further violations.
"Courts must ensure fairness in execution proceedings, as an incorrect decision could unjustly deprive a person of their liberty." - Supreme Court
