Introduction
In a recent landmark judgment, the Supreme Court held that a perpetual injunction, once issued, remains enforceable indefinitely, without any specific period of limitation. The judgement, delivered by a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan in the case of Bhudev Mallick alias Bhudeb Mallick & Anr. Versus Ranajit Ghoshal & Ors1., is grounded upon a thorough examination of Article 136 of the Limitation Act of 1963. The central issue before the court was whether a permanent injunction decree could be executed after a lapse of approximately 40 years.
Factual matrix
In 1965, a lawsuit (Title Suit No. 25 of 1965) was filed concerning land ownership. The plaintiffs sought confirmation of possession, alternatively recovery of possession based on title along with permanent as to the land in question. The respondents in the present appeal, are the legal heirs of the original plaintiffs from the 1965 lawsuit. The 1965 suit was decreed vide the judgment and decree dated 26.06.1976. which permanently restrained the appellants in the present suit from disturbing the peaceful possession of the respondents.
Around 2017, about 40 years after the original court case, the respondents initiated execution proceedings, to enforce the decree dated 26.06.1976. The Respondent claimed that the appellants were disrupting their peaceful use of the property, violating the permanent injunction issued in the decree dated 26.06.1976. The said execution proceedings were fixed for ex parte disposal due to the absence of Appellant. However, on 12.12.2018, the appellants filed their written objection to the said execution proceedings. The said objections were rejected by the executing order saying that the same were not maintainable.
Dissatisfied with the court’s refusal to accept objections, the appellant, filed a revision application in the High Court. The High Court admitted the application on 27.03.2019, and stayed the execution proceeding. The appellants then filed an application to extend the interim stay and notified the lower court. Despite this, on 04.09.2019, the Civil Judge proceeded with the execution case without the appellants present, ordering appellants’ arrest and 30-day imprisonment, as well as the attachment of their property.
Aggrieved by the Civil Judge’s order dated 04.09.2019, the appellants filed Revision Application No. COC 283 of 2019 in the High Court, praying the High Court to review the said order invoking its supervisory jurisdiction , enshrined under Article 227 of the Constitution. However, the High court, vide its order dated 23.09.2019, rejected the revision application, thereby affirming the order passed by the Civil Judge, and held that there was no jurisdictional error in the lower court’s order for arrest, imprisonment, and property attachment.
In such circumstances referred to above, the appellants filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Arguments before the Supreme Court
The appellants argued against the enforcement of a 40-year-old perpetual injunction decree. They also asserted the Civil Judge ordered their arrest and property attachment without affording them a defense. Further, they contested the respondents’ failure to file the mandatory affidavit under Order XXI Rule 11-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, with their enforcement request. Consequently, they sought the reversal of the High Court’s and Civil Court’s orders. Per contra, the respondents countered that the appellants’ argument against enforcing the 40-year-old injunction is baseless. They emphasized that a permanent injunction remains valid indefinitely, allowing the decree holder to seek court intervention whenever their protected right is violated. Therefore, they urged the court to reject the appeal.
Question before the court
- Whether the enforcement of a perpetual injunction decree is subject to any limitation period?
- Whether the High Court made a mistake in upholding the order passed by the Civil Judge?
Judgement and rationale
The court held that a perpetual injunction decree can be enforced at any time, as it is not subject to any limitation period under the Limitation Act. The court found no merit in the appellants’ argument that the 40-year delay barred the respondents from enforcing the injunction. The court held that permanent injunction becomes enforceable when the person bound by it (the judgment debtor) interferes with the rightful possessor’s (the decree holder’s) peaceful possession, attempts to dispossess them, or obstructs their enjoyment of the property—especially when that possession is based on a decree. After reviewing Article 136 of the Limitation Act, the court further held that, as explicitly stated in the proviso to the Article 136, the enforcement or execution of a decree granting a perpetual injunction is not subject to any limitation period. The court further opined that every violation of an injunction is a separate and legally actionable offense, making the person bound by the injunction (the judgment debtor) liable. Repeated violations allow for separate legal action for each instance; the principle of res judicata (which prevents re-litigation of the same issue) does not apply to such instances of disobedience and affirms the need for a firm stance upon such breaches. The court relied on the High Court of Rajasthan’s decision in Maga Ram And Another v. Kana Ram And Others2, which reads as follows:
“There is no substance in the objection relating to limitation. Art. 136, Limitation Act which deals with the limitation for execution of decrees other than a decree granting mandatory injunction. The limitation is 12 years from the date the decree becomes enforceable. The decree for prohibitory injunction became enforceable when the judgement debtors made fresh encroachment on the disputed land. The decree under execution itself was passed on September 20, 1983. As such the third execution application was well within limitation.”
The court while adjudicating upon the second issue held that the way the High Court handled the matter , particularly as to its dismissal order of the appellants’ revision application is disappointing. The court opined that the High Court simply stated there was no jurisdictional error in the lower court’s order for arrest, imprisonment, and property attachment. The court further questioned how the High Court missed the clear errors in the lower court’s order. While acknowledging the High Court’s duty under Article 227 to check for jurisdictional errors, the court held that it should also consider the specific facts and potential consequences (like arrest and imprisonment) and not just mechanically look for “jurisdictional error.” The court further held that the party requesting imprisonment for contempt of an injunction must provide the court with sufficient evidence to find that the individual facing detention had the opportunity to obey the injunction but willfully disobey it. Because depriving someone of their liberty is a serious matter, the party seeking such an order must fully satisfy the court of its necessity. Thus, set aside the order passed by the High Court and also of the executing court.
Conclusion
The unenforceability of perpetual injunction decrees due to time limitations would create a significant legal vacuum, particularly in cases of ongoing or continuous harm. Consider property disputes involving encroachment or nuisance: a violator might temporarily cease the offending action, only to resume it later, claiming the limitation period for the original injunction has expired. This undermines the very purpose of a perpetual injunction, which is to provide lasting relief. Similarly, in environmental pollution cases, a polluter might halt activities briefly, then restart them after the perceived “window” for enforcement has closed. This not only perpetuates the environmental damage but also mocks the legal system. The same principle applies to intellectual property theft, where intermittent infringement could escape long-term legal consequences. A perpetual injunction, by its nature, is intended to address enduring wrongs. While the general limitation period for decree enforcement is 12 years, perpetual injunctions form a crucial exception. Breach of a permanent injunction constitutes a continuing disobedience, each instance of which can be considered a fresh cause of action. To limit enforcement based on time would severely restrict the decree’s efficacy in eradicating persistent legal wrongs, leaving victims vulnerable. The court’s pronouncement clarifies that a truly perpetual decree remains enforceable indefinitely, ensuring its power to address ongoing harm and prevent its resurgence.
12025 LiveLaw (SC) 184
2AIR 1993 Rajasthan 208
