DODLA NARAYANA Vs. VELTI REDDEMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision arises out of execution proceedings. Petitioner is the judgment debtor. The respondent filed O.S. 125/73 on the file of the District Munsif, Tadepallegudem for a permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with his possession of the suit property which is an open land of 1060 sq. yards. The suit was decreed on 10-12-1974. The appeal by the defendant was dismissed on 6-2-1979. The respondent-decree-holder filed E.P. 344/82 and applied for detention of the judgment-debtor under Or. 21 Rule 32, alleging that he interfered with the possession of the plaintiff on 10-3-1982. The E P. was filed on 20-3-82. By order dt. 6-9-1984, the petition was allowed and an order was passed directing detention of the judment-debtor into Civil Prison. He was sent to prison on 18-9-1984 and was released by the Superintendent, Central Jail after three months, i. e., after 17-12-1984. Again, the decree-holder filed E.P. 34/85 for arrest of the judgment-debtor. Even without notice, the petition was allowed on 15-2-1985. However, the said order was set aside in CRP 701/85 on the ground that no notice was given to the judgment-debtor, and that it was open to the decree holder to file a fresh E.P. if he chooses. Then the decree-holder filed E.P. 79/86, out of which the present revision arises, on 2-6-1986, for the same relief, i.e., for arrest and detention in civil prison. By order dated 11th September, 1987, the learned additional District Munsif, Tadepallegudem allowed the petition and directed the judgment-debtor to be arrested and committed to civil prison, till he obeys the decree. Aggrieved thereby, the judgment-debtor has filed the present revision. The case came up before a learned single Judge in the first instance, who referred the same to the Division Bench. The main contention advanced was that the judgment-debtor cannot be detained in execution of a decree for permanent injunction for more than three months. The learded Judge referred the question to the Division Bench, as this is a question of importance and likely to arise frequently. That is how the matter is before us.

(2.) The sole question for consideration is whether in a decree forexecution of a prohibitory injunction, the judgment-debtor can be detained in a civil prison for more than three months. To decide this question, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of Section 51 and Sec. 58 and Or. 21, Rule 32 CPC. Order 21 Rule 32 CPC is as follows : "32. Decree for specific performance for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction : (1) 'Where the party against whom a decree for the specific performance of a contract, or for restitution of conjugal rights, or 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 in the case of a decree for restitution of congujal rights by the attachment of his property or, in the case of a decree for the specific performance of a contract, or for an injunction by his detention in the civil prison or by the attachment of his property, or by both.'

(3.) Sub-Rule 2 deals with the case where the Corporation is thejudgment-debtor, and it is not material for our purpose. It is plain from this Rule, ie., from sub-Rule 1 of Rule 32 that decree for a prohibitory injunction may be enforced either by attachment of property or by detention in the civil prison of the judgment-debtor. Similarly, Rule 30 deals with a case where the decree is for payment of money. The decree can be enforced either by attachment of property or by detention in the civil prison of the judgment-debtor or both. Both Rules 30 and 32 deal with mode of execution. In fact, the heading of these Rules is 'mode of execution'. Neither Rule 30 nor Rule 32 prescribes any period for which the judgment debtor can be detained. The other provisions which are relevant are Sections 51 and 58 C.P.C. Section 51 C.P.C. is as follows : 51. Powers of Court to enforce execution: Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, the Court may, on the application of the decree-holder, order execution of the decree (a) by delivery of any property specifically decreed ; (b) by attachment and sale or by sale without attachment of any property ; (c) by arrest and detention in prison for such period not exceeding the period specified in Section 58, where arrest and detention is permissible under that section : (d) by appointing a receiver ; or (e) in such other manner as the nature of the relief granted may require ;