Summary
Police protection in execution of a final permanent-injunction decree could not be rejected merely because the application cited Section 151 rather than Order XXI Rule 32 CPC. The execution court had jurisdiction, followed the required procedure and caused no prejudice. Its order was restored, leaving a separate specific-performance suit open on merits.
Issues
- Whether citation of an incorrect procedural provision defeated an otherwise competent execution application.
Provisions considered
- Order XXI, Rule 32(5), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Provides for enforcement of an unperformed injunction or specific-performance decree, including practicable performance at the judgment debtor’s expense. (¶ 3–4)
Held
- Jurisdiction and observance of the applicable procedure, rather than the application’s statutory label alone, were decisive. Since jurisdiction was undisputed and no injury or prejudice was shown, the police-protection application could not be rejected for failure to invoke the exact provision. (¶ 2–4)
- Execution of the injunction decree did not prevent the respondent’s separate specific-performance suit being tried on its own merits. (¶ 5–6)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs; High Court judgment set aside and execution court’s police-protection order restored. Pending applications disposed of.