Judgment :- 1. First defendant in O.S.No.1222 of 1984 on the file o1. f District Munsif Court, Uthangarai, is the revision petitioner herein and the matter arises in execution. 2. The respondent herein obtained a decree of permanent injunction against the petitioner and others not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of a cart track, It is alleged in the E.P., after decree has become final, the petitioner herein has given trouble to the respondents by interfering with the enjoyment of the cart track by placing fence and causing obstructions. It is further alleged that the respondents even moved the police stations to remove the obstruction which would not yield any result, Hence, they come to this court to implement the decree under O.21, Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Counter was filed by the petitioner denying the existence of cart track as explained in the plaint, there cannot be any obstruction as alleged. He also stated that he has not violated any orders of this court and he is not liable to be proceeded under O.21, Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. For the purpose of execution, on the side of the decree-holder Exs.A-1 to A-14 were marked and two witnesses were also examined. The petitioner got himself examined as D.W.1. After considering the entire evidence, the executing court held that the petitioner has intentionally violated the decree of injunction and it was directed to be detained in civil prison for a month, The same is challenged in this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the procedure adopted by the lower court in directing the imprisonment and pleaded opportunity should have been given to obey the decree, He also pleaded that O.21, Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be used as a penal provision. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the procedure adopted by the lower court in directing the imprisonment and pleaded opportunity should have been given to obey the decree, He also pleaded that O.21, Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be used as a penal provision. Counsel relied on Sub-rule (1) of Rule 32, O.21, the rule reads thus: “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 of a contract, or for en injunction) by his detention in the civil prison, or by the attachment of his property, or by both.” On merits also, the learned counsel submitted that the order of the lower court cannot stand. 6. First, I will consider the merits of the case, I do not think that sitting in revision, I can re-appreciate the evidence, But, I will consider the material facts on the basis of records placed before me. 7. It has come out in evidence that even during trial, a Commissioner was deputed to ascertain the existence of cart track and he had found that a cart track is in existence and the same is situated on the south of a electric tower, It was after holding that cart track is in existence, decree was granted. The case of the petitioner is that it is situated on the north of the tower. That contention was rejected and found against the petitioner. Even now, the very same contention is put forward that there is no car track is in existence. The lower court after appreciation of evidence had come to the conclusion, especially replying on the Commissioners report that the contention was not bona fide. The lower court also found that there is a obstruction was caused in the enjoyment of the pathway and therefore the petitioner is liable to be detained in civil person. I find that the lower court has considered the entire evidence and rightly come to the conclusion that obstruction which is caused earlier is still in existence. The lower court also found that there is a obstruction was caused in the enjoyment of the pathway and therefore the petitioner is liable to be detained in civil person. I find that the lower court has considered the entire evidence and rightly come to the conclusion that obstruction which is caused earlier is still in existence. Therefore, decreeholder is entitled to execute the decree under O.21, Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 8. The only other question is whether the order of the lower court direction the petitioner to be detained in civil prison is proper or whether he should be given opportunity to obey the decree. The counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions reported in Samee Khan v. Bindu Khan, A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 2765, Paul and Subasingh v. Bacicha Singh Subasingh v. Bacicha Singh Subasingh v. Bacicha Singh, A.I.R. 1980 P. & H. 62. On going by these decisions, I feel that opportunity has to be given to be given to the petitioner to obey the decree. For the said purpose, the petitioner may present himself before executing court and express his willingness to obey the decree and if he so expresses, the detention of imprisonment shall be postponed for a period of ten days. Within that time, if the petitioner implements or obeys the decreed, there will not be detention. For the said purpose, the court also shall supervise the action of the petitioner whether he has in fact obeyed the decree by deputing Commissioner at his expenses. The petitioner will take out the Commissioner along with him who shall visit the property and report to the Court, whether decree has been implemented. The report also must reach the executing court within ten days mentioned above. The decree-holder also shall be present at the spot. On getting report from the Commissioner, the court will take further action. If the decree stands obeyed, the petitioner shall not be imprisoned. Otherwise the punishment imposed will be implemented. C.R.P. is disposed of as above, No costs, Consequently, the C.M.P.No.3017 of 1999 is closed.