DARBARI LAL Vs. SMT. SHANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an execution second appeal arising out of the following facts.

(2.) SMT . Bhagwati Devi obtained a decree for prohibitory injunction against the judgment debtors in suit No. 251 of 1954 restraining the judgment debtors from interfering with her possession over the house in dispute. The judgment debtors disobeyed the decree and interfered with the possession of Smt. Bhagwati Devi with the result that she made an application for execution, as provided Under Order XXI, Rule 32 Code of Civil Procedure. During the pendency of this execution application, she sold the house in question to Smt. Shanti Devi. Smt. Shanti Devi made an application in the execution proceedings for being substituted in place of Smt. Bhagwati Devi. This application was allowed.

(3.) I shall take up the last question first. It is true that Order XXI, Rule 32(5) Code of Civil Procedure appeals to mandatory injunctions and under this rule a prohibitory decree cannot be execute. But, this does not mean that such a decree cannot be executed under the provisions of Order XXI Rule 32(1) Code of Civil Procedure. It the instant case by a decree of a competent court the judgment debtors were prohibited from interfering with the possession of Smt. Bhagwati Devi, the decree holder, over the house in question. Now as it has been complained by their own act the judgment debtors have made it impossible for the obedience of the decree. The question would, therefore; arise as to wither the judgment debtor could be permitted to take advantage of their own unlawful act and say that the decree cannot be executed even under the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 32(1) Code of Civil Procedure.