In a significant ruling, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan. held that imprisonment of a judgment debtor in an execution proceeding is a “drastic step” that cannot be ordered without adequate proof of willful disobedience of a court decree. The ruling came in the case of Bhudev Mallick Alias Bhudeb Mallick & Anr. v. Ranajit Ghoshal & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 2248 of 2025], where the court set aside an order directing the arrest and detention of the appellants in a 40-year-old land dispute.
Background of the Case
The dispute stemmed from Title Suit No. 25 of 1965, filed by the predecessors of the decree holders in Hooghly, West Bengal. The plaintiffs sought confirmation of possession and a permanent injunction against the defendants, preventing them from interfering with the disputed property. The Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court, Hooghly, decreed the suit on June 26, 1976, declaring the plaintiff’s title and confirming their possession. The decree also permanently restrained the defendants from disturbing the plaintiff’s peaceful possession.
In 2017—more than 40 years later—the decree holders initiated Title Execution Case No. 1 of 2017, alleging that the judgment debtors had breached the injunction decree by interfering with their possession. The executing court in Arambagh ordered the arrest and detention of the judgment debtors for 30 days and directed the attachment of their properties.
Aggrieved by this order, the appellants challenged the execution proceedings before the Calcutta High Court, which dismissed their plea. They then approached the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issues
1. Whether a Permanent Injunction Decree Can Be Enforced After 40 Years
The appellants argued that executing a 1976 decree in 2017 was barred by limitation. However, the court noted that a decree of permanent injunction does not become unenforceable due to the passage of time. It observed that:
“A decree for permanent injunction can be enforced at any time if the judgment debtor violates it. The limitation period does not apply to its execution.”
2. Mandatory Requirements Under CPC for Arrest and Detention
The judgment debtors contended that Order XXI Rule 11-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) was violated, as the execution application was not supported by an affidavit stating the grounds for arrest. They argued that this procedural lapse vitiated the entire execution order.
The Supreme Court agreed, stating:
“Imprisonment of a judgment debtor is a drastic step. The executing court must be satisfied that the debtor had the means to comply with the decree but willfully refused to do so. A mere allegation of breach is insufficient.”
3. Failure to Consider the Judgment Debtors’ Objections
The appellants also argued that their written objections were not considered by the executing court. The Supreme Court found merit in this argument, stating that the High Court erred in overlooking the violation of procedural fairness.
Supreme Court’s Verdict
The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the executing court and the High Court, emphasizing that:
“Before depriving a person of liberty through civil imprisonment, the court must record a finding of willful disobedience, backed by clear evidence. Mere execution of an injunction decree does not automatically justify such drastic measures.”
The court remanded the matter to the executing court for fresh adjudication in accordance with due process. Court also reiterated that an executing court must first explore alternative means of ensuring compliance with an injunction decree before resorting to arrest.
