A landmark ruling by the Rajasthan High Court has clarified that an injunction decree lacking precise, identifiable terms cannot be enforced through attachment of property. The judgment underscores that execution courts cannot infer or speculate on the scope of restraint when the decree itself is vague, thereby reinforcing the principle that a decree must be executed as it stands, not as it ought to have been framed.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from a breach of confidentiality concerning the design of surgical gloves manufacturing machines. The decree-holders, M/s Anondita Healthcare and its proprietor, claimed ownership of the machine design and alleged that the judgment-debtors, including Faiz Mohammad and SWEAR Healthcare, misappropriated the design after being engaged in its fabrication. An agreement dated 18.10.2015 explicitly prohibited disclosure of the design to third parties. Despite this, the decree-holders alleged that the design was shared with SWEAR Healthcare, leading to the fabrication of identical machines.
Procedural History
The case progressed through multiple stages:
- 2016: Civil Suit No. 101/2016 filed in Noida seeking permanent injunction against unauthorized use of the design.
- 2017: Ex-parte decree passed on 09.02.2017 restraining Defendant No.1 from disclosing the design to third parties.
- 2019: Execution petition filed in Noida seeking attachment of machines located at Dholpur.
- 2021: Decree transferred to Dholpur District Court under Section 39 CPC; attachment ordered on two machines.
- 2021 - 2022: Judgment-debtors filed objections under Section 47 CPC, alleging one machine was fabricated under a prior agreement dated 29.01.2015. The Executing Court initially released one machine, but after remand by this Court, it maintained attachment of one machine and released the other.
- 2025: Supreme Court set aside an earlier High Court order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Relief Sought
The decree-holders sought enforcement of the injunction by attaching both machines, arguing they were manufactured in violation of the 2015 agreement. The judgment-debtors sought release of both machines, contending the decree was vague, lacked territorial jurisdiction, and could not be executed against property not identified in the decree.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an injunction decree that fails to specify the design, dimensions, or distinguishing features of the restrained machine can be enforced through attachment of property under Section 47 CPC, or whether such a decree is inherently inexecutable due to vagueness.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The decree-holders argued that the Executing Court had jurisdiction to examine whether the machines were manufactured using the protected design. They relied on Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi to assert that evidence could be led in execution proceedings where necessary. They contended that the agreement dated 18.10.2015, the plaint, and the decree collectively established the design’s uniqueness, and that the judgment-debtors’ reliance on an unproved photocopy of a prior agreement (29.01.2015) was legally invalid under Sections 62, 64, and 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. They further argued that the Executing Court’s order dated 11.11.2022 was correct in maintaining attachment of one machine fabricated under a subsequent agreement (20.06.2020).
For the Respondent/State
The judgment-debtors contended that the decree was a mere prohibitory injunction without any specification of the machine design, rendering it incapable of execution. They cited Sanwarlal Agrawal & Others v. Ashok Kumar Kothari and Meenakshi Saxena v. ECGC Ltd. to argue that an executing court cannot enforce a decree that is ambiguous or lacks identifiable parameters. They emphasized that the decree did not name or describe any machine, nor did it declare any machine as infringing. They further argued that the attachment was ultra vires because the decree was passed against Defendant No.1 only, and not against SWEAR Healthcare or its machines.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a rigorous analysis of the decree’s language and its compliance with established principles of execution law. It emphasized that while an executing court may interpret a decree to give it effect, it cannot create or supplement rights not crystallized in the original judgment.
"The decree does not identify any machine, does not declare any machine to be infringing, nor does it restrain the use, operation, or possession of any machine."
The Court noted that the agreement dated 18.10.2015, the plaint, and the decree itself contained no technical specifications, drawings, or distinguishing features of the machine design. This foundational vagueness rendered the decree incapable of enforcement. The Court relied on Brakewel Automotive Components (India) Private Limited v. P.R. Selvam Alagappan and Sanwarlal Agrawal to hold that a prohibitory injunction must define with precision the act to be restrained. Without such clarity, enforcement becomes speculative and arbitrary.
The Court further rejected the Executing Court’s reasoning that one machine was attached because it was fabricated under a subsequent agreement dated 20.06.2020. It held that such a determination required independent adjudication of contractual breach or intellectual property infringement - matters beyond the scope of execution proceedings under Section 47 CPC. The Court observed:
"Permitting such inquiry would amount to converting execution proceedings into a retrial, which is impermissible."
The Court also dismissed the decree-holders’ attempt to introduce new evidence during revision, holding that Section 115 CPC does not permit enlargement of the evidentiary record. The Executing Court’s reliance on an unproved photocopy of the 29.01.2015 agreement was found to be legally unsustainable, as no judicial determination under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act had been made.
The Verdict
The judgment-debtors won. The Court held that an injunction decree lacking specific, identifiable parameters of the restrained subject matter is inherently inexecutable under Section 47 CPC. The attachment of either machine was set aside, and both machines were ordered to be released immediately. The Court affirmed that execution courts cannot enforce vague restraints, even if the underlying conduct appears wrongful.
What This Means For Similar Cases
A Vague Injunction Is Unenforceable
- Practitioners must ensure that injunction decrees explicitly describe the restrained act, object, or design with sufficient specificity.
- Drafting injunctions with vague terms like "similar design" or "unauthorized use" without technical details invites challenge in execution.
- Courts will not infer missing specifications from pleadings or agreements if they are not incorporated into the decree.
Execution Courts Cannot Act as Trial Courts
- Any attempt to determine whether a machine infringes a design must be resolved in a separate suit, not during execution.
- Evidence on the merits of infringement, novelty, or prior art cannot be introduced under Section 47 CPC.
- Attachment of property based on conjecture or unproven allegations violates the principle of finality of adjudication.
Documentary Evidence Must Be Judicially Proved
- Photocopies of agreements cannot be relied upon unless formally proved under Sections 62 - 65 of the Indian Evidence Act.
- Filing an application for secondary evidence without judicial grant does not validate the document.
- Cross-examination referencing an unproved document does not confer admissibility.
