Permanent injunction enforcement remains available on continuing breach, but arrest and attachment need proof of wilful disobedience and proper procedure.

A decree for permanent injunction remains enforceable on every continuing breach, and mere lapse of about 40 years does not bar execution where later disobedience is alleged. Coercive enforcement by arrest, detention in civil prison, or attachment under the Code of Civil Procedure requires the statutory preconditions to be met, including a proper factual foundation, grounds stated in the application or affidavit, and a finding of wilful disobedience after giving the judgment-debtors an opportunity to object. Where those safeguards are absent, coercive execution cannot stand, although the decree-holder may proceed afresh in accordance with law if interference with possession continues.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the execution of a decree of permanent injunction could be resisted on the ground that it was instituted after about 40 years from the date of the decree. (ii) Whether the executing court was justified in ordering arrest, detention in civil prison and attachment of property without a proper factual foundation and without affording the judgment-debtors an opportunity to place their objections on record.

Issue (i): Whether the execution of a decree of permanent injunction could be resisted on the ground that it was instituted after about 40 years from the date of the decree.

Analysis: A decree for permanent injunction is enforceable when the decree-holder's possession is sought to be disturbed or the decree is breached. The law treats violation of such a decree as continuing disobedience. Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not subject enforcement of a perpetual injunction to any period of limitation. The lapse of time, by itself, does not render execution incompetent where the injunction is alleged to have been breached later.

Conclusion: The objection based solely on delay of about 40 years was not a valid ground to reject the execution.

Issue (ii): Whether the executing court was justified in ordering arrest, detention in civil prison and attachment of property without a proper factual foundation and without affording the judgment-debtors an opportunity to place their objections on record.

Analysis: Section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 permit coercive enforcement of an injunction decree only where the judgment-debtor has had an opportunity to obey the decree and has wilfully failed to do so. Order XXI Rule 11-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 requires the grounds for arrest to be stated in the application or by affidavit. The materials before the executing court did not establish wilful disobedience with the required foundation, and the judgment-debtors were denied a meaningful opportunity to have their objections considered before coercive steps were ordered. The supervisory court ought to have corrected that procedural infirmity.

Conclusion: The order directing arrest, detention and attachment was unsustainable and was rightly set aside.

Final Conclusion: The coercive execution order could not stand because the injunction decree, though executable despite the passage of time, could not be enforced by arrest and attachment without compliance with the mandatory procedural safeguards and a proper finding of wilful disobedience. The matter was allowed, with liberty to the decree-holders to proceed afresh in accordance with law if future interference with possession is shown.

Ratio Decidendi: A decree for permanent injunction is enforceable on every continuing breach, but coercive execution by arrest, detention, or attachment requires compliance with the statutory preconditions of opportunity, pleaded grounds, and a finding of wilful disobedience.

---