ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition has been moved with the prayer that the proceedings for civil contempt be initiated against the respondent under the Contempt of Courts Act because the respondent has taken unlawful possession over the disputed property. 3. It so appears that the respondent filed a suit for possession against the petitioner in the Court of Munsif, Azamgarh. The trial Court decreed the suit. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, Azamgarh, decreed the respondent's suit for possession and allowed the appeal. The petitioner filed a second appeal in this court which was admitted as Second Appeal No. 3265 of 1980 and this Court vide its order dated 10-12-1980 stayed the execution of the decree for possession. It is alleged by the petitioner that in spite of the fact that the execution of the decree was stayed by this Court, the decree-holder-respondent has taken possession by force without putting the decree into execution. It is, therefore, alleged that the respondents be punished for having disobeyed the order of this Court passed on 10-12-1980 staying the execution of the decree. 4. It is obvious from the facts stated above that this Court stayed the execution of the decree and it is also clear that the decree has neither been put into execution nor has it been executed. The order of this Court has thus, neither been disobeyed by the Court below nor has it been disobeyed by the decree-holder. The decree-holder has, on the other hand, taken possession by means of force without seeking the aid of legal process and without putting the decree into execution. The remedy for the same lies with the criminal Court under criminal laws and not under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. The petitioner may pursue proper remedy for the same in accordance with law. The fact remains that as the decree has not been executed and as the alleged possession has not been taken in pursuance of the decree, so the order of this Court staying the execution of the decree cannot be said to have been disobeyed. 5. In this view of the matter, the prayer for initiating,proceeding for civil contempt under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act is rejected.