The Allahabad High Court has flagged a trend in which Civil Court decrees are becoming 'meaningless' due to the approach of police and revenue authorities, observing that such authorities appear to treat the Civil Court as "hardly a Court" and its orders and decrees as having no effect.

A Bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla made the observations while hearing a writ petition filed by Vishv Jaat Sangh Charitable and Religious Trust concerning the enforcement of a permanent injunction decree protecting its possession of the disputed property.

Briefly put, the petitioners' suit for permanent injunction was decreed in 2020 by a Civil Judge (Junior Division). The 5th respondent was restrained from interfering with their possession, dispossessing them, dissipating or transferring the suit property, or digging it up or damaging it.

However, the Court recorded in its order that there had been "persistent disobedience" of the decree, despite the fact that a subsequent order of the High Court had protected their rights over the property.

The bench added that in the normal course, the petitioners would have moved the Court for execution of the decree "if the public in general, who are litigants including officials of the State were to understand the law and the position of the Court of ordinary original civil jurisdiction".

Expressing concern over the manner in which Civil Court decrees are treated by authorities, the Bench further observed:

"Of late, we have noticed a trend, where decrees of Civil Courts regarding execution whereof much emphasis is laid have become meaningless because the police and revenue authorities of the State think that the Civil Court is hardly a Court and their orders and decrees are of no consequence".

The Court further noted that the authorities 'trifle' with such decrees and orders and even go so far as to complain to the High Court on administrative grounds when a Civil Court Judge takes measures to execute his orders.

It may be noted that the petitioners had earlier approached the High Court seeking a direction to the authorities not to interfere with the peaceful functioning of the trust and to comply with the judgment and decree.

At that stage, the State's instructions recorded that the petitioners' suit for permanent injunction had already been decreed.

The instructions further stated that the police and district administration were ensuring compliance with the Civil Court's order and that “no amount of effort is being made to hand over the possession of the property in question to a third party”.

It was also stated that the petitioner remained in possession. The High Court had consequently directed that the petitioners continue to remain in possession and be entitled to use and enjoy the property.

It was also observed that if aggrieved by any act or conduct of a third party, the petitioners should have the permanent injunction decree executed in accordance with law.

However, the present order records that despite the Civil Court decree and the High Court's order, the petitioners were still facing difficulty in raising construction on the suit property. The Court observed thus:

"One decree of the Civil Court passed in the suit and one order of this Court had not been enough to buy peace for the petitioners".

The Bench said that it was the duty of the police to ensure "on a 24-hour basis" that the petitioners' rights were not interfered with.

However, the Court noted that they had not done so and that the petitioner had approached the District Magistrate, Mathura, seeking implementation of the Civil Court's decree and the High Court's order.

The Bench remarked that this was the "audacity and contempt of the highest order".

Against this backdrop, the High Court directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mathura, District Magistrate, Mathura and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mathura to ensure that the Civil Court decree and the High Court's order dated February 4, 2026 were “punctiliously complied with”.

The Bench further directed that "no one gets within arm's length of the suit property", in any event whatsoever, even if it required deployment of police force 24 hours a day.

The Court made it clear that the decree and its orders were to be carried out by the police "without fail".

Case title - Vishv Jaat Sangh Cheritable And Religious Trust And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 649

Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 649

Click Here To Read/Download Order