http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: YASHPAL SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: VIII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT12/03/1992

BENCH: PUNCHHI, M.M. BENCH: PUNCHHI, M.M. REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J)

CITATION:  1992 SCR  (2) 181        1992 SCC  (2) 504  1992 SCALE  (1)696

ACT:      Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:      Order  2. Rule 32-Decree for injunction  against  State Government-’Party’-Wilfully failing to obey decree-Execution of decree-Whether can be enforced by attachment of  property of State employee who is not part to suit.

HEADNOTE:      Respondent  no.  3  obtained  a  decree  for  permanent injunction  restraining  the State of U.P.  and  its  Forest Department from interfering with his rights of cutting trees on a plot of land.  Later on ’X’ filed a suit and obtained a temporary   injunction  restraining  respondent  no.3   from cutting and removing trees from her plot under the guise  of the injunction obtained by him.  Thereafter ’X’ reported  to the  District  Senior  Superintendent of  Police  about  the disobedience of the temporary injunction; and ultimately the appellant,  who was the Station House Officer of  the  area, seized  certain  logs  of wood said to  have  been  cut  and removed  from the plot of ’X’.  Respondent no.3,  moved  the executing  court under Order 21, Rule 32, C.P.C.  impleading the  S.S.P and the S.H.O., the appellant, and  alleged  that their action amounted to obstruction and was in defiance  of the injunction granted in his favour.  The objections  filed by  the  S.S.P. and the appellant were dismissed  and  their properties  were directed to be attached.  On revision,  the District  Judge modified the attachment order absolving  the S.S.P. of the obstruction.      The  appellant,  after unsuccessfully  challenging  the orders of the civil courts in writ petition before the  High Court, filed the appeal by special leave to this Court,      Allowing the appeal and setting aside the orders of the High Court and of both the civil courts, this court,                                                        184      HELD: 1. The provision of Order 21 Rule 32(1) C.P.C  is applicable  to a party against whom a decree for  injunction had been passed, [p.186A-B]      2.  The word ’party’ occurring in Order 21 Rule  32(1), C.P.C.  cannot be construed so liberally as to include  each and every employee of the State to have been a party to  the suit  in  which the injunction was passed .   The  intention manifested  in the provision seems to confine the rigour  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

the  party who had contested the suit and had  suffered  the decree  and  it is that pary when obstructing is  liable  of being detained in the civil prison, or suffer attachment  of his property, or both. [p. 186C-D]      3.1 Although the Forest Department of the State of U.P. and  the State of U.P were parties,  and, being an  employee of  the State of U.P., the appellant was in an indirect  way bound  by the injunction, yet it cannot be said that he  was by himself a party to the suit as such against whom the said decree was passed. [p.186B-C]      3.2 The appellant was not a party to the suit in  which the injunction was granted.  He need not suffer action under Order  21  Rule  32  C.P.C. or to  remain  under  threat  of attachment  of  his property, more so when he is  no  longer available at the scene to obstruct any more or to expose his property to such supposed attachment. [p.186B & D-E]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4533 of 1990.      From  the  Judgment and Order dated  14.5.1990  of  the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No Nil  of 1990.      Bharat Sangal for the Appellant.      Manoj Prasad for the Respondent.      The following Order of the Court was delivered.      This  appeal  by special leave concerns  a  Police  Sub Inspector  who  in the discharge of his duty  was  about  to attract  an order under order 21 Rule 32 C.P.C. as also  the prospect of getting  his property attached.      Respondent   no.3  obtained  a  decree  for   permanent injunction  against the Forest Department of the State  U.P. and the State of U.P. injuncting                                                        185 them from interfering in the rights of respondent no.3  from cutting trees on a plot of land said to be belonging to him. Later  one  Smt.  Lagan  Devi filed  a  civil  suit  against respondent   no.3   and  obtained  an    interim  injunction restraining respondent no.3 from cutting and removing  Trees standing  on  her  plot under the  guise  of  the  injuction obtained  by  him in the earlier suit.   Having  obtained  a temporary  injunction she reported disobedience  thereof  to the  Senior  Superintendent of Police,   District  Gorakhpur soliciting  help  towards  obedience of  the  injuction.  It appears that the appellant herein who was the Station  House Officer  of  Police Station, Paniar,  Distt.  Gorakhpur  was asked  to take up the matter in hand. As a remedial step  he siezed  certain  logs  of wood said to  have  been  cut  and removed for the plot of land of Smt. Lagan Devi and  stopped their movement.  Terming the stoppage of movement of logs of wood  as  defiance of the injunction granted  in  favour  of respondent  no.3,  the said respondent moved  the  Executing Court  under Order 21 Rule 32 C.P.C complaining  obstructing and necessary orders in that regard.  He arrayed the  S.S.P. And the S.H.O. as respondents.  They filed objection  before the  Executing Court.  The objections were dismissed by  the Executing   Court  directing  that  the  property  of    the appellant  and  the S.S.P. Gorakhpur be attached  as  prayed for.  On revision to the District Judge (such revision being competent under a State Amendment) the order was modified to the extent that the S.S.P. was absolved of the  obstruction. The  appellant on whom came the brunt moved  the High  Court by  means  of a writ petition unsuccessfully  and  this  has

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

brought him to this Court.      We  are told at the Bar by Mr. Bharat  Sangal,  learned counsel  for  the appellant that since  long  the  appellant stands  transferred to another District and now he is  in  a promotional  post.   It is otherwise the  admitted  position that   thus far the property of the appellant  has not  been attached. In the first place when the appellant is no longer present in the District to obstruct or continue  obstructing the  legal process, it is idle to contend that the order  of the Executing Court in the changed circumstance shall remain sustained.   These supervening facts must obviously have  an impact  in moulding the relief.  In the second place, it  is difficult  to uphold the view of the Courts below  that  the appellant was a person who could be brought within the  grip of  order  21  rule  32 C.P.C.  The  said  provision  in  an extracted form can be re-written as follows:          "E.32(1) Where the party against whom a decree  for          injuction                                                        186          has been passed, has had an opportunity of  obeying          the decree and has willfully failed to obey it, the          decree may be enforced in the case of a decree  for          an injuction by his detention in the civil  prison,          or by the attachment of his property, or by both".      It  is  significant and patent that this  provision  is applicable  to a party against whom a decree  for  injuction had been passed.  Admittedly, the  appellant was not a party to  the  suit in which the injuction was granted. It  may be true that the Forest Department of the State of U.P. and the State  of  U.P. were parties and being and employee  of  the State  Of U.P. the appellant is in an indirect way bound  by the injuction but it cannot be said that he was by himself a party to the suit as such against whom the  said decree  was passed.   The word ‘party’ cannot be construed so  liberally so  as  to include each and every employee of the  State  of U.P. to have been a party to the suit in which the injuction was passed.  The intention manifested in the provision seems to  confine  the rigour to the party who had  contested  the suit  and had suffered the decree and it is that party  when obstructing is liable of being detained in the civil prison, or suffer attachment of his property, or both.  Thus we  are of  the considered view that on either count  the  appellant need  not suffer action under Order 21 Rule 32 C.P.C. or  to remain  under threat of attachment of his property, more  so when he is no longer available at the scene to obstruct  any more, or to expose his property to such supposed attachment.      For  the reasons recorded above the appeal is  allowed. The  impugned  orders of the High Court as well as  that  of both  the Civil courts against the appellant are set  aside. No order as to costs. R.P.                                         Appeal allowed.                                                       187