AVTAR SINGH Vs. BALKAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Contempt Petition has been filed against the respondents for violating the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Senior Division) Ajnala in Civil Suit No. 487 of 1994 decided on April 28, 1997. Numerous allegations have been levelled against the respondents No. 1 to 3, who were party to the decree as well as respondents No. 4 and 5 - the police officials, who are alleged to have helped respondents No. 1 and 3 in taking forcible possession.

(2.) WITHOUT going into the entire controversy raised in the contempt Petition, I deem it appropriate to relegate the petitioner to seek execution of the decree as a regular remedy for execution of the decree is provided by Order XXI Rule 32. The Executing Court is well armed with the powers of forcing the respondents to comply with the decree of permanent injunction. This view has been taken by this Court on COCP No. 88 of 2002. The observations made by this Court read as under :

(3.) THE other argument of the petitioner that the proceedings initiated under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code are not penal in nature and are directed towards achieving the object of compliance of the order passed by the trial Court, would not be relevant to decide the question posed. The duty of the petitioner is to bring to the notice of the Court, the order passed by it and its violation. Thereafter, the matter rests wholly between the Court and the contemner. It cannot be disputed that proceeding which are initiated under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code, are quasi criminal in nature. Dealing with this aspect, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Rani Somabati Kumari's case (supra) has observed as under :-