JUDGMENT Madeley, J. - This is an execution of decree appeal. 2. The facts are that the Respondents obtained a declaration with respect to a plot No. 123 and a portion of No. 125, that they are entitled to use these as their "sahan darwaza" and they also obtained a prohibitory injunction to the present Appellant that he is not to interfere with the Respondents making such use of these plots. It appears that the Appellant has interfered by storing cow-dung cakes etc. on these plots. The Respondents therefore went to the execution department in the Munsif's Court. The learned Munsif dismissed the application. In appeal to the Additional Civil Judge, however, while the learned Munsif's decision was upheld so far as it related to Order 21 Rule 32, Sub-clause (5), it was dissented from as regards Order 21 Rule 32(1). The execution application was sent back to the learned Munsif for disposal according to law in conformity with the decision arrived at by the learned Additional Civil Judge. 3. The judgment-debtor has now come in appeal to this Court where it is argued that neither Sub-clause (5) nor Sub-clause (1) has any application to prohibitory injunctions. It is argued that there must be some definite act to be performed before there can be disobedience to the decree within the meaning of Rule 32(1). I cannot accept this argument since it appears to me that if a person is prohibited from doing something and does not, it is just as much disobedience as if he is ordered to do something and fails to do it. 4. Learned Counsel relies upon Rayi Rangayya Naidu Vs. Rayi Subbayya Naidu, AIR 1936 Mad 706 , but it appears to me that there is nothing in this decision in support of his contention. He also relies upon Angad and Others Vs. Madho Ram and Others, AIR 1938 All 416 , which follows Hem Chandra Naskar and Another Vs. Narendra Nath Bose and Others, AIR 1934 Cal 402 . In Angad and Others Vs. Madho Ram and Others, AIR 1938 All 416 , it was held that Sub-clause (5) has no application to prohibitory injunctions, and therefore it was said that the decree holder's remedy lay not in the execution department but by a separate suit. Narendra Nath Bose and Others, AIR 1934 Cal 402 . In Angad and Others Vs. Madho Ram and Others, AIR 1938 All 416 , it was held that Sub-clause (5) has no application to prohibitory injunctions, and therefore it was said that the decree holder's remedy lay not in the execution department but by a separate suit. Though apparently this supports the Appellant, I think that on a proper reading of the decision it is clear that the learned Judges who decided this case meant that if the decree-holder desires such relief as is contained in Rule 32(5), his remedy lies in a separate civil suit. They cannot, in my opinion, mean that if he is going to confine himself to the remedies contained in Sub-clause (1), he cannot proceed in the execution department. After all if the decree-holder could never proceed in the execution department to enforce a prohibitory decree, it would seem that such a decree would be completely valueless and he might just as well have no decree at all. Respondents' learned Counsel moreover has cited certain decisions of the Calcutta High Court in support of his contention that Sub-clause (1) is applicable. Sachi Prasad Mukherjee v. Amarnath Roy Chowdhuri (1919) 46 Cal. 103 at p. 107 and Hemchandra Naskar v. Narendranath Basu (1934) 61 Cal. 148 at p. 151. Mulla in his CPC (11th Edition) at page 794 also expresses the same view. 5. Appellant's learned Counsel has argued that since Sub-clause (1) is not specifically mentioned in the application for execution, the application should be dismissed as a whole. Some of the prayers contained in the application are, however, reliefs provided for by Sub-clause (1). This argument, therefore, also fails. 6. I dismiss this appeal with costs.