Perpetual injunctions have no limitation; execution petition restored and remitted for fresh hearing

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran heard Civil Appeals arising from a High Court order that dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an execution petition filed by decree-holders seeking enforcement of a permanent prohibitory injunction. The appeals concerned whether a satisfaction recorded in earlier execution proceedings precluded a fresh execution petition for subsequent interference with possession.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, held that the High Court "has misconstrued the entire case," and set aside the orders of the executing and revisional courts. The Court restored E.P. No.2 of 2012 and remitted the matter to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Champaran for fresh consideration, observing that a satisfaction recorded in one execution proceeding did not bar a further execution petition filed on account of subsequent breach. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "It is also to be noticed that Article 136 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 provides for limitation, for execution of any decree other than a decree granting a mandatory injunction or the order of any Civil Court. While 12 years is provided as the period of limitation the proviso specifically provides that there would be no limitation to enforce or execute a decree granting perpetual injunction. When a permanent injunction is granted it operates perpetually against the judgment debtors, their assignees and successors and it could be enforced at any time, breach is occasioned. The decree-holder; their assignees and successors, has a perpetual right in personam against the decree holders their assignees and successors." The Court further clarified that its observations on the Section 47 objection were prima facie and "shall not govern the consideration of such objection by the executing Court."

Background The dispute originated from Civil Suit No.44 of 1988, in which the plaintiffs (predecessors-in-interest of the appellants) obtained a decree granting a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining interference with possession of agricultural fields in Village Kharkhari, Tehsil and District Champawat. A supplementary sale deed dated 22.08.1998, executed in favour of the father of some defendants, had been declared cancelled in the decree. Execution proceedings were instituted by the plaintiffs for alleged obstruction of possession. In an earlier execution petition, the matter was closed as "full satisfaction" when neither the decree-holder nor the judgment-debtor appeared and the judgment-debtor had given a written undertaking that they were not causing interference.

The legal heirs of the plaintiffs (appellants) later filed E.P. No.2 of 2012. The defendants filed an objection under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, contending title based on a 29.09.1984 sale deed and asserting that only a supplemental deed of 1998 had been cancelled; they also said they had sought setting aside of the decree before a Civil Judge (Junior Division). The executing Court held that because the earlier EP had been disposed on satisfaction, there was no scope for a further EP; the revisional court affirmed and the High Court dismissed the writ petition and a review application.

The Supreme Court found the High Court's approach erroneous, emphasising that a decree granting perpetual injunction carried "a perpetual right in personam" and that Article 136 of the Limitation Act excluded limitation for enforcement of such decrees. The Court set aside the impugned orders, restored E.P. No.2 of 2012 and remitted the matter to the executing Court for fresh consideration in light of the observations, while recording that the executing Court should independently adjudicate the Section 47 objection and any claimed proceedings to cancel the decree. The appeals were allowed and pending applications disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 715 Case Title: SARASWATI DEVI & ORS. v. SANTOSH SINGH & ORS. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the judgment