YASHPAL SINGH v. VIII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS.

Tools
Court
Supreme Court of India
Decided
(year only)
Bench
MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI and K JAYACHANDRA REDDY
Citation
[1992] 2 S.C.R. 183

Source PDF (original scan)
Contains information from the Indian High Court / Supreme Court Judgments dataset, licensed under CC-BY-4.0

Judgment · Supreme Court of India · decided (year only) · Bench: MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI and K JAYACHANDRA REDDY

[1992] 2 S.C.R. 183

Machine-read from a scanned report. Check the printed page before citing. Report an error.

Headnote — Supreme Court Reports (editorial summary, not part of the judgment)

A

Held

1. The provision of Order 21 Rule 32(1) C.P.C is applicable to a party against whom a decree for injun.ction had been passed. [pJ86A-B]

Reporter's headnote (continued) and case details

-....J MARCH 12, 1992 B

....,.. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 :

Order 2. Rule 32--Decree for injunction against State Govern- c ment:-'Party'-Wilfully failing to obey decree-Execution of decree-Whether --""t-- can be enforced by attachment of property of State employee who is not part to suit.

'r Respondent no. 3 obtained a decree for permanent injunction restraining the State of U.P. and its Forest Department from interfering with his rights of cutting trees on a plot of land. Later on 'X' filed a suit and obtained a temporary injunction restraining respondent no.3 from cutting and removing trees from her plot under the guise of the injunction obtained by him. Thereafter 'X' reported to the District Senior Superin- tendent of Police about the disobedience of the temporary injunction; and ultimately the appellant, who was the Station House Officer of the area, seized certain logs of wood said to have been cut and removed from the plot of 'X'. Respondent no.3, moved the executing court under Order 21, ~ Rule 32, C.P.C. impleading the S.S.P. and the S.H.O., the appellant, and alleged that their action amounted to obstruction and was in defiance of the injunction granted in his favour. The o:i>jections filed by the S.S.P. and the appellant were dismissed and their properties were directed to be attached. On revision, the District Judge modified the attachment order }. absolving the S.S.P. of the obstruction.

.~ The appellant, after unsuccessfully challenging the orders of the civil courts in writ petition before the High Court, filed the appeal by special leave to this Court,

Allowing the appeal and setting aside the orders of the High Court and of both the civil courts, this court, H ....~ I 183

184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992) 2 S.Clt.

2. The word 'party' occurring in Order 21 Rule 32(1), C.P.C. cannot be construed so liberally as to include each and every employee of the State to have been a party to the suit in which the injunction was passed. The B intention manifested in the provision seems to confine the rigour to the party who had contested the suit and had suffered the decree and it is that party when obstructing is liable of being detained in the civil prison, or suffer attachment of his property, or both. [p.186C-D]

3.1 Although the Forest Department of the State ofU.P. and the State c of U.P. were parties, and, being an employee of the State of U.P., the --)F · - appellant was in an indirect way bound by the injunction, yet it cannot be said that he was by himself a party to the suit as such against whom the said decree was passed. [p.186B-C] -< D 3.2 The appellant was n!>t a party to the suit in which the injunction was granted. He need not suffer action under Order 21Rule32 C.P.C. or to remain under threat of attachment of his property, more so when he is no longer available at the scene to obstruct any more or to expose his property to such supposed attachment. [p.186B & D-E] E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4533 of 1990.

From the Judgment and Order dated 14.5.1990 of the Allahabad ").. High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. Nil of 1990. F Bharat Sangal for the .Appellant.

Manoj Prasad for the Respondent. ~

Judgment

Footnotes

21 Rule
32 C.P.C. as also the prospect of getting his property attached.

Respondent no. 3 obtained a decree for permanent injunction against H- the Forest Department of the State of U.P. and the State of U.P. injuncting .,. "

YASHPAL v. DIS1RICT JUDGE 185

Footnotes

21 Rule
32 C.P.C. complaining obstructing and neces• sary orders in that regard. He arrayed the S.S.P. and the S.H.O. as respondents. They filed objections before the Executing Court. The objec- D tions were dismissed by the Executing Court directing that the property of the appellant and the S.S.P. Gorakhpur be attached as prayed for. On revision to the District Judge (such revisi~n being competent under a State Amendment) the order was modified to the extent that the S.S.P. was absolved of the obstruction. The appellant on whom came the brunt moved the High Court by means of a writ petition unsuccessfully and this has brought him to this Court.

Footnotes

21 Rule
32 C.P.C. The said provision in an extracted form can be re-written as follows:

"E.32 (1) Where the party against whom a decree for injunction H

p. 186

A has been passed, has had an opportunity of obeying the decree and has willfully failed to obey it, the decree may be enforced in the case of a decree for an injunction by his detention in the civil prison, or by the attachment of his property, or by both".

Footnotes

21 Rule
32 C.P.C: or to remain under threat of attachment of his property, more so when he is no longer available at the scene to obstruct any more, or to expose his property to such supposed attachment. For the reasons recorded above the appeal is allowed. The impugned orders of the High Court as well as that of both the Civil courts against the appellant are set aside. No order as to costs.

R.P. Appeal allowed.

Report an error in this judgment →

Contains information from the Indian High Court / Supreme Court Judgments dataset, licensed under CC-BY-4.0