“ Paragraph 19 – It may be that in the fullness of time, with a final and conclusive order wholly in favour in the record of rights proceedings, the judgment debtor might not be left stranded without a suitable remedy to enable him to resume possession and proceed to exercise his rights as a cultivating tenant. But until that happens, and until he is helped by a competent decree or order to obtain possession, he is bound by the decree for injunction which is even now in force and which restrains him from for ever interfering possession. The wriggle out of an injunction of this kind and flourish in the court’s face an entry in his favour in the record of tenancy rights. An insertion of that kind, by itself, cannot provide the judgment debtor with any excuse to take the law into his own hands, and enter possession of the decree holder’s fields, violating the terms of the injunction. A court of law cannot sit still with folded hands and countenance its injunction being treated with indifference or scant courtesy by the party against whom it was directed and who is bound to obey its terms. This is particularly so, when, as it happened in this case, the decree for injunction had been confirmed in successive appeals, right up to this Court. Even the plea of nullity, based on Sec.16-A is now found on examination to be with the decree holder’s judgment debtor cannot without substance. There can, therefore, be no defence whatever open to the judgment debtor against executing the decree for injunction in accordance with Or.21 R.32.”
