NAWAB SINGH Vs. MITHU LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a judgment-debtor's appeal arising out of an execution proceeding. A decree was passed against him prohibiting him permanently by injunction from holding a fair on certain lands. The fair yields a considerable income. The defendant accordingly deliberately chose to disobey the injunction issued by the Court and held a fair and made a profit out of it. The decree-holder accordingly executed the decree against him. The Courts below have allowed Rs. 300 compensation to the decree-holders and some cash has been attached.

(2.) In appeal it is contended that the decree for injunction was not executable. We are unable to accept his contention. There is a specific provision in Order 21, Rule 32, Civil P.C., which provides for the execution of a decree for injunction. It is futile to argue therefore that the only remedy of a decree-holder is to bring a separate suit for damages.

(3.) Under Sub-rule 1 a decree for injunction can be executed by the detention of the judgment-debtor in civil prison or by the attachment of his property or by both. This provision obviously applies to both kinds of decrees whether they be for an injunction ordering the defendant to do something or for restraining him or prohibiting him from doing something. Sub-rule 3 then provides that where any attachment has remained in force for one year, if the judgment-debtor has not obeyed the decree and the decree-holder has applied to have the attached property sold, such property may be sold, and the decree-holder may be I: given compensation out of sale proceeds.