Mathura vs Sunita Choudhary

This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking action against the respondent nos. 1 to 4 for deliberately and intentionally flouting the judgment and decree dated 10/12/1999 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Div.), Sriganganagar in Civil Suit No.218/95.

It is inter alia submitted that by the judgment and decree dated 10/12/1999 the Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Div.), Sriganganagar partially decreed the suit filed by the petitioners and directed the defendants therein not to construct the road without legally acquiring the land and taking action in accordance with law. It is alleged that despite grant of decree by the trial court way back in the year 1999, the Municipal Board, Sriganganagar has issued notices and the petitioners have been directed to submit documents pertaining to the land, to which a response dated 17/2/2016 has been given and despite submission of all the documents, the Municipal Board was threatening to dismantle the construction raised by the petitioners and to construct the road. Based on the said allegations, it is submitted that the respondents are flouting the decree passed by the trial court and, therefore, the petitioners filed an application under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (''the Act, 1971'') before the trial court, which application was returned back holding that the said court had no jurisdiction.

With reference to the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Rama Narang vs. Ramesh Narang & Anr. : (2006) 11 SCC 114, it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that action of the respondents in not following the decree and injunction passed by the trial court amounts to contempt and, therefore, deserve to be dealt with by this Court while exercising powers under Section 10 of the Act.

Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and the judgment in the case of Rama Narang (supra), wherein, the Hon''ble Supreme Court laid down that merely because the order or decree is executable, would not take away the Court''s jurisdiction to deal with the matter under the Act provided the Court is satisfied that violation of the order or decree is such, that if proved, it would warrant punishment under Section 13 of the Act on the ground that the contempt substantially interferes or tend substantially to interfere with the due course of justice.

The parameters laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court for exercise of jurisdiction in a decree which is executable under the Code of Civil Procedure are of very high standards, wherein, the court has to come to a conclusion that the alleged act substantially interferes or tends substantially to interfere with the due course of justice, a look at the averments made by the petitioners in the petition reveals that very sketchy submissions have been made in the petition alleging violation of the decree passed by the trial court and there is no material on record indicating any action of the respondents, which can be said to fall within the parameters laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court.

Besides the above, the petitioner has a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction in his favour. Order XXI, Rule 32 provides the mode of execution of such a decree, which reads as under:- "32.Decree for specific performance for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction.- (1) 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 willfully failed to obey it, the decree may be enforced by his detention in the civil prison, or by the attachment of his property, or by both."

A perusal of the aforesaid would manifest that a decree for an injunction can be enforced either by detention in prison or by attachment of the property or by both against the party, against whom a decree for injunction has been obtained, provided such a party has willfully failed to obey it.

It is settled that ordinarily, contempt is not a mode of execution of a decree, when other modes have been provided. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Kanwar Singh Saini vs. High Court of Delhi : (2012) 4 SCC 307, had an occasion to examine the enforcement of interim/final orders/decree of the court including undertakings given to the court vis-a-vis contempt. It was laid down as under:- "The provision of Order XXI, Rule 32 C.P.C., applies to prohibitory as well as mandatory injunctions. In other words, it applies to cases where the party is directed to do some act and also to the cases where he is abstained from doing an act. Still to put it differently, a person disobeys an order of injunction not only when he fails to perform an act which he is directed to do but also when he does an act which is prohibited from doing. Execution of an injunction decree is to be made in pursuance of Order XXI, Rule 32 C.P.C., as the C.P.C. provides a particular manner and mode of execution and, therefore, no other mode is permissible."

In view thereof, no case is made out in the present contempt petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.