Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held that for enforcement or execution of a decree granting perpetual injunction there shall be no period of limitation. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Bhudev Mallick Alias Bhudeb Mallick v. Ranajit Ghoshal (2025). 

What was the Background of Bhudev Mallick Alias Bhudeb Mallick V. Ranajit Ghoshal Case?   

• The original plaintiffs filed Title Suit seeking confirmation of possession or recovery of possession based on title, along with a permanent injunction against disturbance.   
• The suit was decided in favor of the plaintiffs in 1976, confirming their title and possession, and permanently restraining the defendants from disturbing their possession.  
• Dissatisfied with the 1976 decree, the appellants (defendants) filed an appeal, but the details of its disposal are unclear, with the appellants claiming it was disposed of in 1980.  
• In 2017, after approximately 40 years, the respondents (heirs of the plaintiffs) filed an Execution Case, claiming that the appellants were violating the permanent injunction by disturbing their possession of the suit property.  
• The appellants filed written objections to the execution case in 2018, arguing that the suit was not maintainable, the decree was vague, and they had not violated the decree, as they had been in possession of the property since 1980. They also stated that the decree holders had never had possession of the property.  
• The Executing Court rejected the appellants' written objections and proceeded with final arguments in January 2019. The appellants filed a revision application before the High Court, which stayed the proceedings in March 2019.  
• Despite the stay, the Civil Judge passed an order on 4th September 2019 allowing the execution case ex parte, directing the appellants to be arrested and detained in civil prison for 30 days and their property to be attached.  
• The appellants filed a revision application challenging the order, but the High Court dismissed the revision application in September 2019, affirming the lower court's decision and rejecting the appellants' claims.  
• Dissatisfied with the High Court's ruling, the appellants are now challenging the order in the present appeal before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court first of all discussed the provisions related to arrest enumerated under Code of Civil Procedure 1908 ( CPC) .  
• With regard to limitation period for execution of the decree the Court held that the proviso to Article 136 of the Limitation Act,1963 (LA) makes it clear that for enforcement or execution of a decree granting perpetual injunction there shall be no period of limitation.  
• As per Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC where a judgment debtor disobeys a decree of injunction he can be dealt with under this rule by imprisonment or by attachment of property or by both.  
• However, the court has to record a finding that the judgment-debtor willfully disobeyed or failed to comply with the decree in spite of opportunity afforded to him. Absence of such finding is a serious infirmity vitiating the order.  
• Hence, what is required of the person seeking execution of the decree for injunction under the subrule is to place materials before the executing Court as would enable it to conclude:  
  • That the person bound by the decree, was fully aware of the terms of the decree and its binding nature upon him.  
  • That person has had an opportunity of obeying such decree, but has willfully, i.e., consciously and deliberately, disobeyed such decree, so that it can make an order of his detention as sought for.  
• The Court also discussed in this case as to what would constitute a jurisdictional error.  
• The Court finally held that the executing Court should have been considerate and should have at least given one opportunity to the appellants before ordering their arrest.  
• Thus, it was held by the Court that the order passed by the High Court is hence unsustainable in law.

What are the Provisions Related to Limitation Period for Execution of the Decree of Perpetual Succession? 

• Article 136 of the LA states the limitation period for the execution of any decree (other than a decree granting a mandatory injunction) or order of any civil court. 
• The limitation period for the same is 12 years. 
• The limitation period shall begin to apply: 
  • When the decree or order becomes enforceable or where the decree or any subsequent order directs any payment of money or the delivery of any property to be made at a certain date or at recurring periods, when default in making the payment or delivery in respect of which execution is sought, takes place. 
• It is also provided that an application for the enforcement or execution of a decree granting a perpetual injunction shall not be subject to any period of limitation.