+91 964 334 1948
16 May 2025, 02:33 PM
The Supreme Court today (May 16) observed that satisfaction recorded in one Execution Petition (“EP”) for past breach of permanent injunction would not preclude the filing of a subsequent EP for fresh breaches of permanent injunction.
The Court reasoned that because a permanent injunction is perpetual and enforceable against future interferences, the filing of a subsequent EP against later breaches would not be barred by Res Judicata.
“The decree was one of permanent prohibitory injunction from interference to the peaceful possession of the scheduled property. A satisfaction recorded in one EP would not result in the dismissal of a further EP filed on the ground of a subsequent interference caused.”, the court said.
A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran heard the case involving a suit by the appellants' predecessor to protect possession of agricultural land. The trial court granted a permanent injunction and cancelled a 1998 sale deed favoring the defendants. After the decree, the appellants filed multiple execution petitions. The third EP, filed in 2012 alleging fresh obstruction, was dismissed by the executing and revisional courts on the ground that “full satisfaction” had been recorded earlier. The High Court upheld this view, rejecting the decree-holders' claims without considering the ongoing nature of a permanent injunction.
Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Chandran observed that a finding of “full satisfaction” in an earlier EP does not bar the filing of a subsequent EP in cases of fresh breach of a permanent injunction because a decree of permanent injunction is enforceable perpetually, and there's no bar to file subsequent EP on fresh breach of injunction order.
No Limitation Period For Enforcing Decree Of Permanent Injunction
Further, citing Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the Court emphasized that there is no limitation period for enforcing a decree of permanent injunction as each new breach constitutes a fresh cause of action.
“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 decreeholder; their assignees and successors, has a perpetual right in personam against the decree holders their assignees and successors.”, the court observed.
In terms of the aforesaid, the Court allowed the appeal.
Case Title: SARASWATI DEVI & ORS. VERSUS SANTOSH SINGH & ORS.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 587
Click here to read/download the judgment
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Nishit Agrawal, AOR Mr. Sankalp Suman, Adv. Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Shoumendu Mukherji, AOR Ms. Kusum Sapna Chhetri, Adv. Ms. Megha Sharma, Adv. Mr. Aniruddha Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Anshuman Mohanty, Adv.