JUDGMENT
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.
1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and order dated February 6, 2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Third Court at Midnapore, District: Paschim Midnapore in Civil Revision Case No. 26 of 1997 reversing order No. 182 dated February 7, 1997 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Third Court at Midnapore, District: Paschim Midnapore in Judicial Misc.Case No. 6 of 1994.
2. The petitioners arc the decree holders. The decree holders instituted Title Suit No. 39 of 1972 in the Court of learned Munsif, Third Court at Midnapore, inter alia, for declaration of their title and for permanent injunction. By the judgment and decree dated April 25, 1977, the learned Trial Judge decreed the said suit. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with, the said judgment and decree dated April 25, 1977, the defendants judgment-debtors preferred Title Appeal No. 137 of 1977 in the Court of learned District Judge, Midnapore. Eventually, the said appeal was transferred to the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Third Court at Midnapore. By the judgment and decree dated April 19,1979, learned Additional District Judge allowed the appeal in part and modified the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge. The learned Judge in the Lower Appellate Court, inter alia, declared the plaintiffs’ right, title and interest in the Kha schedule land covered by the area shown within A-2, B, B-1, B-2 and portion of Ka schedule land within A, A-1, A-2 and A-3 having an area of .0037 acre in R.S. plot No. 7/220 and restrained the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs in those lands. The learned Judge in the Lower Appellate Court directed that the report of the learned Pleader Commissioner along with his field book and the map be made part of the decree.
3. The decree holders, under Order 21 Rule 32(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, put the decree for permanent injunction into execution. The said proceeding was registered as Title Execution Case No. 8 of 1982. The judgment-debtors filed an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, inter alia, challenging the executability of the decree and the said application was registered as Judicial Misc.Case No. 6 of 1994.
4. The learned Judge in the Executing Court by order No. 182 dated February 7, 1997 allowed the said application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the judgment-debtors and, consequently, dismissed the Execution Case No. 8 of 1982. The learned Judge in the Executing Court, inter alia, held that unless and until the boundary line could be determined, it was not possible to find the obstruction as alleged by the decree holders.
5. The decree holders being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with, the said order passed by the learned Judge in the Executing Court filed an application under Section 115A of the Code of Civil Procedure in the Court of the learned District Judge, Midnapore, which was registered as Civil Revision Case No. 26 of 1997. Eventually, the civil revision case was transferred to the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Third Court at Midnapore. By the order impugned dated February 6, 2004 the learned Judge in the Revisional Court allowed the revisional application and directed the learned Judge in the Executing Court to consider the application for execution as also the application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure afresh in the light of the observations made by the learned Judge in the Revisional Court.
6. The decree holders have come up before this Court challenging such order of the learned Judge in the Revisional Court inasmuch as the learned Judge in the Revisional Court, inter alia, observed that if a simple prohibitory injunction be disobeyed, a fresh cause of action arose for which the remedy was either by a mandatory order of injunction or in some other ways.
7. Mr. Jiban Ratan Chatterjee, learned Advocate, appearing in support of this application, submits that there has been one local investigation in connection of the suit and the report of the learned Pleader Commissioner and along with his field book and the map prepared by him were made part of the decree. Therefore, Mr. Chatterjee submits, there is no difficulty to determine the boundary line. Mr. Chatterjee submits that the observant ions of the Courts below about the mode of the execution of a decree for perpetual injunction are not correct.
8. Mr. Jiban Kumar Bhattacharya, learned, Advocate, appearing for the judgment-debtors/opposite parties, on the contrary, submits that this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable against an order passed by the Revisional Court in exercise of its power under Section 115A of the Code of Civil Procedure. Mr. Bhattacharya cites in the decision in the case of Paltu Dutta v. Nibedita Roy, reported in AIR 1990 Cal 262. Mr. Bhattacharya, also, cites the decision in the case of S.J. Ebanezer v. Velayudhan and Ors., and contends that the High Court in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot substitute its view in place of the views taken by statutory authority.
9. This application arose out of a suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction. The Lower Appellate Court finally decreed the suit declaring the plaintiffs’ right, title and interest in Kha schedule land covered by the area shown within A-2, B, B-1, B-2 and portion of Ka schedule land within A, A-1, A-2 and A-3 having an area of .0037 acre in R.S. plot No. 7/220 and restrained the defendants/judgment-debtors from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs in those lands. The learned Judge in the Lower Appellate Court directed that the report of the Pleader Commissioner along with his field book and the map prepared by him be made part of the decree.
10. In my view, the learned Judges in the Courts below proceeded on a misconception as to the scope of Order 21 Rule 32(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. From a bare perusal of the provisions of Order 21 Rule 32(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is clear that the said provision would apply both to mandatory and prohibitory injunction. For enforcement of perpetual prohibitory injunction proviso to Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies and it is not subject to any limitation. The remedy provided under Order 21 Rule 32 with regard to injunction is to take action against the judgment-debtors for violation of injunction. The injunction consists of both mandatory and prohibitory. For the purpose of enforcement of decree for perpetual prohibitory injunction, the decree holders have to show in the execution petition as to how the judgment-debtors have violated the decree for injunction. The decree holders are to state the acts made in the violation of the decree and when was it done. Even if such an averment is not available in the application for execution it is enough if the decree holders file an affidavit regarding the nature of violation made.
11. The question of determination of boundary line is not difficult in this case inasmuch as there has been a commission by survey passed Pleader Commissioner. The report passed by the survey passed Pleader Commissioner including his field book and the map prepared by him were made part of the decree. If such report, field book and the map are carefully looked into, the boundary of the disputed property could be determined.
12. Now, I consider the objection raised by Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Advocate, appearing for the opposite parties, concerning the maintainability of this application. The reliance placed by Mr. Bhattacharya in Paltu Dutta (supra) is misplaced inasmuch as even in Paltu Dutta (supra) it has been held that the High Court in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against an order passed by the Revisional Court could interfere in case of manifest gross injustice, abuse of the process of the Court or similar other extraordinary situation.
13. Article 227 of the Constitution of India gives the High Court the power of superintendence over all Courts and Tribunals throughout the territory in relation to which it exorcises jurisdiction. The supervisory jurisdiction extends to keep the subordinate Tribunals within the limits of their authority and to see that they obey the law. The powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are wide enough and can be used to meet the end of justice.
14. In this case, the Courts below did not proceed within their parameters. The orders of the Court below are based on misinterpretation of the provisions of Order 21 Rule 32(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Unless this Court interferes with the orders impugned, the decree holders will be precluded from enjoying the fruit of the decree obtained by them upon a contested trial.
15. Therefore, the orders passed both by the Revisional Court and by the Executing Court are set aside. The Execution Case No. 8 of 1982 as also the application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure being Judicial Misc. Case No. 6 of 1994 are restored to their original files and numbers. The learned Judge in the Executing Court is directed to consider the matters afresh in the light of the provisions of Order 21 Rule 32(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure and with the help of the report of the survey passed Pleader Commissioner whose report, field book and the map have already been made part of the decree.
16. This application is, thus, disposed of with the aforesaid directions.
17. Since this is an execution case of the year 1982, I direct the learned Judge in the Executing Court to dispose of the matters as early as possible, but in any event before the commencement of the long vacation for the Civil Courts for the year 2005.
18. I direct the parties to bear their respective costs.
19. The learned Registrar (Administration) is directed to communicate these directions to the Executing Court forthwith by a special messenger at the cost of the petitioners; such costs are to be put in by Friday next.