JUDGMENT : S. B. PD. SINGH, J. Heard learned counsel of both the parties. 2. The present Civil Miscellaneous Application has been filed for the following reliefs:- “a. For issuance of writ of certiorari or direction\order or writ for setting aside order dated 19-10-2024 passed by Sub- Judge, Senior Division-I, Bagaha in Execution Case No. 1 of 2021, whereby and where under the learned Court has rejected the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. b. For issuance of any other appropriate writ/writs, order\orders, direction/directions, for which petitioner may deemed entitled under the fact and circumstance of the case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent/plaintiff had filed Title Suit No. 95 of 2015 for permanent injunction against defendants/petitioners for not making any interference on the possession of the plaintiff/respondent over the suit properties. The above suit was decreed and decree of permanent injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff/respondent, against which, defendants/petitioners/judgment-debtor filed Appeal No. 3 of 2021 and plaintiff/respondent/decree holder has filed Execution Case No. 1 of 2021. The decree-holder has prayed for delivery of possession over the suit properties in Execution Case No. 1 of 2021. In the aforesaid Execution Case, the defendants/petitioners/judgment-debtor filed a petition under Section 47 of the CPC, resisting the execution proceedings and submitted that plaintiff/respondent/decree-holder can not file execution petition in Title Suit No. 95 of 2015 for delivery of possession because neither any relief for recovery of possession was prayed in the suit nor it was granted in decree. Only permanent injunction has been granted in his favour. Hence, the decree passed by the Court below is totally vague and ambiguous and on this score also, the present decree is not executable and decree-holder is not entitled to recovery of possession from the defendants/petitioners/judgment-debtor. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that proper procedure of dealing with miscellaneous judicial cases has not been followed by the Executing Court and petition of the petitioners was rejected without examining the facts of both the parties and the impugned order has been passed which is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that proper procedure of dealing with miscellaneous judicial cases has not been followed by the Executing Court and petition of the petitioners was rejected without examining the facts of both the parties and the impugned order has been passed which is not sustainable in the eye of law. Learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment passed by Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of G.Anandam versus Warangal Municipal Corporation reported in 1997 1 ALD 587 ; 1997 1 ALT 434; 1997 1 APLJ 83 ; 1997 1 CivCC 606 ; 1996 0 Supreme(AP) 878;. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/decree holder submits that he has filed the present case for the execution of the judgment passed in Title Suit No. 95 of 2015. The judgment-debtor has been debarred by the Court from filing rejoinder on 23.04.2022. The respondent/decree-holder, thereafter, filed an application on 07.05.2022 for depositing the expenses of Nazir and cost of deputation of Police force and Magistrate and by the order of the Court, the decree-holder has deposited the said expenses. Learned counsel further submits that in the above Title Suit No. 95 of 2015, the main issue was issue Nos. 5 and 6. Issue no. 5 was that whether the plaintiff/respondent is in peaceful possession of the disputed land and issue No. 6 was that whether the plaintiff/respondent was entitled to get a permanent injunction with respect to suit properties. Both the above points were decided by the Court in favour of the decree- holder /plaintiff /respondent. The Judgment-debtor/defendants/petitioners had contested the said Title Suit No. 95 of 2015 and the judgment/decree was passed in full knowledge of judgment-debtor. Learned counsel also submits that present application under Section 47 of the CPC has been filed by the judgment-debtor/petitioners only to prolong the present execution case and the present application of petitioners/judgment- debtor under Section 47 of the CPC is liable to be dismissed in light of Order XXI Rule 32(2)(5) of the CPC. The judgment debtor is forcefully getting a permanent structure constructed on the suit properties even after the decree of permanent injunction was passed against him. The judgment debtor is forcefully getting a permanent structure constructed on the suit properties even after the decree of permanent injunction was passed against him. So, the respondent/decree-holder has filed an application for recovery of possession through the process of Court in which the learned Court has ordered the local Police Station Chautarwa to maintain status-quo of the suit properties. 6. After hearing learned counsel of both the parties, the moot question for decision in this miscellaneous appeal is that, for want of any decree of recovery of possession, whether in a case of permanent injunction, the defendant/judgment-debtor can be directed to deliver the possession or not by the Executing Court. As per submission of learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, since the plaintiff was in peaceful possession of the disputed land since filing of the suit and till judgment and decree passed therein, hence, there was no cause of action available to him at that time to sought for any further relief regarding recovery of possession of the suit properties from the defendant. He further submits that Issue No. 5 was concerned with this fact and it was decided in his favour and learned Trial Court found his possession over the suit properties at the time of judgment and hence, permanent injunction was granted in his favour. 7. Subsequently, the defendants/petitioners started trying to dispossess the plaintiff/decree-holder from the suit premises forcefully and hence, the plaintiff has filed Execution Case and subsequent petition for recovery of possession through process of the Court or Police force. In this context, the provision under Order XXI Rule 32 of the CPC is quite relevant which reads as follows:- “32. Decree for specific performance for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction— (1) Where the party against whom a decree for the specific performance of a contract, or for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction, has been passed, has had an opportunity of obeying the decree and has wilfully failed to obey it, the decree may be enforced in the case of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights by the attachment of his property or, in the case of a decree for the specific performance of a contract or for an injunction by his detention in the civil prison, or by the attachment of his property, or by both. 2……………. 3……………. 4……………. 5. 2……………. 3……………. 4……………. 5. Where a decree for the specific performance of a contract or for an injunction has not been obeyed, the Court may, in lieu of or in addition to all or any of the processes aforesaid, direct that the act required to be done may be done so far as practicable by the decree-holder or some other person appointed by the Court, at the cost of the judgment-debtor, and upon the act being done the expenses incurred may be ascertained in such manner as the Court may direct and may be recovered as if they were included in the decree. Illustration A, a person of little substance, effects a building which renders uninhbitable a family mansion belonging to B. A, in spite of his detention in prison and the attachment of his property, declines to obey a decree obtained against him by B and directing him to revoe the building. The Court is of opinion that no sum realizable by the sale of A's property wold adequately compensate B for the depreciation in the value of his mansion. B may apply to the Court to remove the building and may revocer the cost of such removal from A in the execution-proceedings.” 8. After going through the above specific provision as well as illustration, it clearly transpires that this provision is meant for prohibitory as well as mandatory injunction. The aforesaid provision specifically empowers the Court that any act which requires to be done may be done. So for compliance of injunction order and upon the act being done, the expenses incurred may be ascertained in such manner as the Court may direct and it also may be recovered as if they were included in the decree. So the above provision covers compliance of temporary, prohibitory as well as mandatory injunction by the Court. 9. In order to buttress his argument, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff/decree- holder placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Naurang versus Lrs of Late Sri Chunnilal and others in Civil Revision Petition No. 145 of 2025. The relevant paragraphs of the order reads as under:- “12. Order XXI Rule 32(5) CPC vests in the executing court the necessary power to secure effective compliance of such decrees. The relevant paragraphs of the order reads as under:- “12. Order XXI Rule 32(5) CPC vests in the executing court the necessary power to secure effective compliance of such decrees. It clarifies that where a decree of prohibitory injunction is rendered nugatory by the wilful and unlawful act of the judgment-debtor, particularly dispossession of the decree-holder, the court may adopt all measures essential to secure obedience, including the restoration of possession. To give full effect to an injunction decree, the executing court may also remove every obstruction set up in breach thereof, so that the successful litigant may truly reap the benefit of adjudication. Mere penal consequences under the contempt jurisdiction may not suffice; in appropriate circumstances, restoration of possession becomes the most efficacious mode of enforcement. After protracted litigation, to require the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit for recovery of possession on account of the subsequent acts of the defendants, which are calculated to frustrate the judgment and decree already passed, would be wholly unjust and improper. 13. In the facts at hand, the decree in categorical terms protected the possession of the decree-holders over the suit land. If, during or after the pendency of litigation, the judgment-debtor has forcibly dispossessed them in violation of the decree, the civil court is not powerless. On the contrary, it is under a bounden duty to act so that its solemn adjudication is not reduced to an illusory formality. The provisions of law, coupled with the overarching duty of the Court to protect the sanctity of its process, empower it to ensure that the decree-holder's possession is preserved intact, and that he is shielded against any further threat of intrusion by the adversary. 14. Upon careful consideration, I find that the learned Civil Judge has committed no legal error in declining the objections and proceeding to secure compliance with the decree. The impugned order is firmly rooted in the object and spirit of Order XXI Rule 32 CPC, in the settled principles of execution law, and the overarching duty of the court to ensure that its decrees are not rendered hollow by subsequent unlawful acts of any party.” 10. The impugned order is firmly rooted in the object and spirit of Order XXI Rule 32 CPC, in the settled principles of execution law, and the overarching duty of the court to ensure that its decrees are not rendered hollow by subsequent unlawful acts of any party.” 10. Learned counsel further placed reliance on a judgment reported in AIR 2009 Punjab And Haryana 188 (Kapoor Singh vs. Om Prakash) in which following principle has been laid down:- “Order XXI Rule 32(5)-Powers of executing Court-Decree for specific performance of contract and injunction restraining judgment debtor from forcible dispossession-Violation of injunction order- Executing Court would have jurisdiction to issue order of mandatory injunction for restoration of possession-Decree holder cannot be required to file another suit as he had already obtained a decree in his favour by spending much time and expense.” 11. After going through the above entire facts, it appears that although the petition filed under Section 47 of the CPC by the petitioners/judgment-debtor has not been registered as Miscellaneous Judicial Case but the entire factual and legal aspects of the said petition and this case has been well appreciated by the Executing Court in its impugned order. It is well settled law that procedural law is subservient to the substantial law and it is meant for facilitating the substantial justice and in this case, not mentioning the Miscellaneous Judicial Case Number regarding the petition filed under Section 47 of the CPC, does not vitiate the proceedings and make the order illegal because the entire facts have been fully appreciated by the learned Executing Court and it has categorically been held in its order. The relevant paragraph of which reads as under:- “Further, in AIR 2009 Punjab and Haryana 188 Kapoor Singh Vrs. Om Prakash , it was held that in the event of violation decree of permanent injunction by dispossession of the decree holder by the judgment debtor, the executing court has jurisdiction to restore possession in favour of decree holder who can't be compelled to file another suit. Hence from above discussions and verdicts of Hon'ble court, it appears that decree of permanent injunction can be enforced U/O 21 Rule 35 (2) in addition to other mode of enforcement and executing court have power to restore the possession of decree holder, if he has been dispossessed by the judgment debtor” 12. Hence from above discussions and verdicts of Hon'ble court, it appears that decree of permanent injunction can be enforced U/O 21 Rule 35 (2) in addition to other mode of enforcement and executing court have power to restore the possession of decree holder, if he has been dispossessed by the judgment debtor” 12. The decree holder, after getting a decree of permanent injunction against the judgment-debtor after long litigation, cannot be asked to file again another suit for his subsequent dispossession or threat of dispossession on the suit properties made by the defendant/judgment-debtor. On the basis of aforesaid provisions under Order XXI, Rule 35(2), the Executing Court has full jurisdiction and competence to restore the possession in favour of decree- holder and he cannot be compelled to file another suit, otherwise judgment and decree passed in favour of decree- holder would be frustrated and he would be deprived from taking the fruit of decree. 13. Accordingly, I do not find any illegality and impropriety in the impugned order dated 19.10.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division-I, Bagaha, West Champaran. 14. Hence, Civil Miscellaneous No. 251 of 2025 stands dismissed and accordingly, the earlier order of stay of the proceedings of Execution Case No. 01 of 2021 passed by this Court on 26.03.2025 stands vacated.