GURUMURTHY REDDY Vs. A K N NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant has sought for action to be taken against the respondents for alleged disobedience of a decree of perpetual injunction passed in o. s. No. 6249 of 1989 on the file of the xiv city civil judge, bangalore.

(2.) THE specific complaint is that, on 23-9-1993, the respondents herein entered into the land, and with the help of the 1st respondent, demolished the compound wall on the eastern side. This allegation is however, denied by the other side. It is stated that, what is demolished is certain unauthorised construction put up by certain persons which was prevented by the b. d. a. apart from that, there is no allegation, as such, regarding the alleged disobedience.

(3.) IN view of the conflicting versions, the matter was referred to the trial court for holding a summary enquiry and to report, which has been submitted. However, in the view we propose to take, it appears to be unnecessary to go into the merits of the case. The moot question that arises for consideration is whether in view of the special provisions to deal with disobedience of a decree for injunction under Order 21, rule 32 of the C. P. C. , it is appropriate for this court to initiate any action under the contempt of courts act, 1971 (for short, the 'act' ). This question, in our opinion, is no more res integra in view of the decision of a division bench of this Court in Rudriah v State of Karnataka and others. That was a case wherein disobedience of an interim injunction was alleged and this court was similarly called upon to take action under the act. In that context, the court has after referring the provisions of Order 39, rules 1, 2 and 2-a of the C. P. C. has stated thus:we are in respectful agreement with this view.