Judgment Nagendra Rai, J. 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the judgment and order of punishment passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by which he has punished the appellant Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 and in the default, to undergo simple imprisonment for the two weeks. He has also punished appellant No. 4 under the said section and ordered him to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default to go simple imprisonment for one week. 2. The Respondent Shiv Shankar Mishra filed a Title Suit No. 136 of 1986 before the Munsif, Begusarai on 3-12-1981 for declaration that he is entitled to have his seniority from 1-5-1963, the date of his joining as time-keeper on permanent basis and for his pay and allowances on the basis of seniority. He further prayed that the defendants be directed through mandatory injunction to place the petitioner on the seniority list on the basis of bis joining as time-keeper from 1-5-1963. 3. The said suit was decreed on 24th March, 1984. The operative portion of the judgment runs as follows : "The plaintiff is held entitled to have his seniority from 1-5-1963 the date of his joining as time-keeper on permanent basis and accordingly he is further held entitled to get consequential benefits according to him on the basis of his seniority on and from 1-5-1963 in the matter of his promotion and emoluments. The defendants are directed by order of mandatory injunction to peace plaintiff on seniority list as held above and further directed to grant him all consequential reliefs in the matter of promotions and emoluments." 4. The Corporation and its officers who challenged the aforesaid judgment and decree in appeal before the District Judge which was upheld by him on 4-4-1995. Thereafter, the Corporation filed a Second Appeal No. 193 of 1985 in this Court which was allowed on the grouud that the affected persons were not impleaded party in the plaint. The plaintiff challenged the said judgment before the Apex Court. The Apex Court remanded the matter to the High Court to hear the appeal after impleading the necessary party. Thereafter, the Corporation filed a Second Appeal No. 193 of 1985 in this Court which was allowed on the grouud that the affected persons were not impleaded party in the plaint. The plaintiff challenged the said judgment before the Apex Court. The Apex Court remanded the matter to the High Court to hear the appeal after impleading the necessary party. Thereafter, the appeal was heard and dismissed on 9-10-1990. While dismissing the appeal, this Court directed the Corporation immediately comply with the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Again the matter was taken to the Apex Court by the Corporation as well as the persons who were added as parties in the High Court in pursuance of the directions of the Apex Court by filing two S. L. P. petitions, namely, 4249 of 1991 and 4751 of 1991. Both were dismissed on 21-3-1991. 5. It appears from the record that afer plaintiff-respondent succeeded in the trial Court, he levied an execution case being Execution Case No. 4 of 1984/26 of 1985 in the Executing Court. As the matter was pending before the High Courts, no progress could be made in the Execution case, however, after the dismissal of the matter by the Supreme Court, the plaintiff took steps in the Execution case. 6. It appear further from the record that the applications were filed on behalf of the Corporation on 24-8-1991, 4-5-1991 and 6-5-1991 wherein it was stated that they would comply with the judgment and decree. The learned Executive Court granted time on 4-5-1991 to comply with the order within a month but the Judgment-debtors did not comply with the order. In the meantime the plaintiff respondents came to the Court and filed a Miscellaneous Judicial Case on 9-7-1991 for punishing the appellant Nos. 2 and 3 who were opposite Parties in the said application. 7. In the M. J. C. Case, the learned single judge issued directions from time to time to the appellants. Affidavits were filed on behalf of the Corporation and its officers in the said M. J. C. case sworn by appellant Nirmal Kumar Singh. The learned Judge, having noticed that the false statements were made in some of the affidavits has initiated a proceeding for contempt against Nirmal Kumar Singh also and finally by order under challenge, has punished them as stated above. 8. The learned Judge, having noticed that the false statements were made in some of the affidavits has initiated a proceeding for contempt against Nirmal Kumar Singh also and finally by order under challenge, has punished them as stated above. 8. The appellants have been punished for committing civil contempts which has been defined under Section 2(b) of the Act which means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order writ or other process of a Court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a Court. The proceedings for contempt are quasi-criminal in nature unless it is proved beyond reasonable doubts that a person has wilfully disobeyed the judgment, order direction or undertaking, he cannot be punished for contempt of Court. A bare perusal of the definition shows that disobedience should be wilful meaning thereby there must appear to be a clear intention on the part of the person proceeded against to flout the judgment, decree etc. Before a person is punished for civil contempt it must be shown that there was deliberate attempt on his part to circumvent the direction or order of the Court and he has adopted wrong method to avoid the implementation of the order. There is a purposeful and clear intention to flour the order. 9. The error alleged to have been committed by the person proceeded against must be a wilful error proceeding for improper and corrupt motive. The lack or proper care and caution is not sufficient to punish a person for contempt. Similarly, a bona fide misinterpretation of an order is no ground to punish a person for contempt. What amounts to deliberate disobedence has been explained by the Apex Court in the case of S. S. Roy v. State of Orissa and others, reported in AIR 1960 SC 190 , in the following word : "The error must be a wilful error proceeding from improper or or corrupt motives in order that he may be punished for contempt of Court. On the facts found, the appellant can certainly be said to have acted without proper care and caution but there is nothing on the record to suggest any wilful culpability on his part and it has been expressly held by the learned Judges of the High Court that he was not actuated by any corrupt or dishonest motive. On the facts found, the appellant can certainly be said to have acted without proper care and caution but there is nothing on the record to suggest any wilful culpability on his part and it has been expressly held by the learned Judges of the High Court that he was not actuated by any corrupt or dishonest motive. It these circumstances, we think that the order passed by the High Court cannot be supported." Before considering the question as to whether the appallants wilfully disobeyed the judgment and order I would like first to decide the submissions advanced by the appellant as to the maintainability of the contempt proceedings itself. 10. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that once an execution proceeding is pending in the Court to execute the decree, the contempt of proceedings is not maintainable in the eye of law. According to him, a proceeding for contempt is not a remedy to execute a decree. The Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand, contended that the pendeney of the execution case is no bar to the initiation of the contempt proceeding for the reason both are two different independent proceedings. Execution proceedings are initiated for the enforcement of terms and directions of the judgment and decree of the Court against the concerned party whereas the contempt is initiated for violation of the judgment and decree etc. 11. So far as the execution proceeding is concerned, as already stated above the decree holder has levied an execution case which was pending at the time when this M. J. C. application was filed. Now the decree has been satisfied and the execution case has come |to end. However, that will not make any difference so far as the question raised in the appeal is concerned. 12. The execution proceeding as well as contempt proceedings both. the independent proceedings and they operate in two different fields or spheres. So far as the execution proceeding is concerned, that is filed by a party against the other party to the litigation for enforcement of the rights and liabilities created under the decree or the order. The contempt proceedings are proceedings to uphold the prestige and the dignity of the Court and majesty of law. It has nothing to do with the execution of the decree or order passed in a litigation. The contempt proceedings are proceedings to uphold the prestige and the dignity of the Court and majesty of law. It has nothing to do with the execution of the decree or order passed in a litigation. One proceeding cannot be termed as a substitute for the other. The contempt proceeding cannot be used as a weapon against the judgment-debtor to force him to comply with the decree or order. The contempt proceeding can be initiated only when the materials on record show wilful disobedience of the order. Raising valid objections in the execution proceedings regarding executability of the decree under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure or under any law, or taking other recourse of type permissible in law an execution proceeding, annot be turned as awilful disobedience and a proceeding for contempt cannot be initiated on that ground. 13. The law in this regard has been clearly stated in Halsbury, Laws of England (third edition), Vol. B at pages 20-21 under the heading Contempt in procedure. "In circumstances involving misconduct contempt in procedure bears a two-fold character, implying as between the parties to the proceedings merely a rignt to exercise and a liability to submit to a form of civil execution, but as between party in defaut and the State, a penal or disciplinary jurisdiction to be exercised by the Court in the public interest." Misconduct of this kind consists in wilful disobedience to any order or process, or in the breach of an undertaking given to the Court." A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Mira Base v. Santosh Kumar Bose, reported in AIR 1973 Cal 483 , has held that only because an order is enforceable by a party to the action in whose favour it has been made it cannot be said that disobedience to it cannot be contempt of Court. 14 The learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon a Full Bench judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Prakash Chand v. S. S. Grewal and others, 1975 Cr LJ 679 in support of his contention. The said judgment, in my view, does not support the extreme stand taken by the Counsel for the appellants. 14 The learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon a Full Bench judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Prakash Chand v. S. S. Grewal and others, 1975 Cr LJ 679 in support of his contention. The said judgment, in my view, does not support the extreme stand taken by the Counsel for the appellants. In that case it has been only held that proceeding for contempt of Court cannot be used as a lever to obtain a relief in accordance with the decree from the judgment-debtor. These proceedings have to be resorted to, to uphold the dignity of the Court. 15. In my considered view, the pendency of the execution case is no bar to the initiation of the Contempt Proceeding for wilful disobedience of judgment and order provided the contempt is initiated to uphold the dignity of the Court and majesty of the law. However, it is made clear that in no case the contempt proceedings should be made a substitute for the execution proceeding. The paramount or if I say the only consideration for initiation of civil contempt proceeding should be wilful disobedience of the judgment, decree and accordingly the submission of the appellants regarding the maintainability of the proceeding is rejected. 16. It has to be decided as to whether the appellants can be held to have wilfully disobeyed the judgment and decree thus committed civil contempt. The learned Judge has held the appellants guilty after coming to a finding that appellant No. 2 and 3 have deliberately disobeyed the judgement and decree of the trial Court upheld by the Superior Court and appellant No. 4 for filing a false affidavit in the contempt proceedings. 17. In the execution proceeding, as stated above, the appellants had filed several petitions clearly stating therein that they are ready to obey the direction under the judgment and decree and prayed for som time. It further appears that during the execution proceeding, the executing Court itself was not clear as to what would be the entitlement of the decree holder in the terms of decree. The decree-holder filed petition claiming that he was entitled to be promoted as the General Manager, if the judgment and decree is given its full effect. It further appears that during the execution proceeding, the executing Court itself was not clear as to what would be the entitlement of the decree holder in the terms of decree. The decree-holder filed petition claiming that he was entitled to be promoted as the General Manager, if the judgment and decree is given its full effect. As noted above, it was only mentioned in the judgment and decree that the decree holder, after giving seniority is to be given consequential benefits in the matter of promotion and emoluments. There was no clear direction to promote him to a particular grade or rank. According to the judgment-debtor appellants, the plaintiff was not entitled to be promoted up to the level of the General Manager. During the pendency of the contempt proceeding before this Court, the Corporation issued an order by which the plaintiff was given promotion to Grade A. The plaintiff filed a petition challenging aforesaid promotion on the ground that persons junior to him have been promoted to the said post from back date and as such the promotion given to him by the Corporation, is not in the terms and conditions of the judgment and decree and the thereafter the learned Judge determined the entitlement of the plaintiff and came to the conclusion that the judgment-debtor appellants have deliberately not followed the judgment and decree of the Court. At this place, it may be mentioned that the appellants, in their show cause, has clearly stated that they are ready to comply with the judgment and decree and as a matter of fact they have also promoted him. However, that promotion given to the plaintiff, decree-holder was not taken to be an appropriate promotion by the learned Single Judge and accordingly he came to the conclusion that the appellants are trying their best to circumvent the lawful judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. In my considered opinion, there is nothing on the record to show that there was any bad motive or intentional disobedience on the part of the appellant to circumvent the order of the Court. In my considered opinion, there is nothing on the record to show that there was any bad motive or intentional disobedience on the part of the appellant to circumvent the order of the Court. The operative part of the judgment and decree of the trial Court which has been extracted above, shows that the plaintiff was held to have been entitled to his seniority from 1-5-1963 from the date of joining as timekeeper on permanent basis and to get all the consequential benefits in promotion and emolument. The appellant Corporation granted him seniority from the retrospective date as time-keeper and also promoted him. There was controversy as to the particular rank which the plaintiff was entitled to in the terms of judgment and decree. On that ground it cannot be said that this was a deliberate disobedience of the judgment and decree on the part of the appellants. It may be said that there was a lack of due care and caution or the appellants have misinterpreted the judgment and decree but on that ground, it cannot be inferred that they are guilty of wilful disobedience. It is to be stated here that even the judgment under appeal show that much time and labour has been devoted to find out the fault of the appellants. The materials on record have been considered in detail with a view to determine in the contempt proceeding the entitlement of promotional post of the decree-holder in terms of the directions of the Court and then the appellants have been punished. The very fact that the Court has to consider the material and determine the promotional entitlement of the plaintiff is indicative of the fact that grant of promotion was not free from controversy. This apart, the Supreme Court disposed on the matter on 21-3-1991 and thereafter the plaintiff proceeded with the execution and rushed to this Court for initiation of contempt proceeding on 9-7-1991. No sufficent time was granted to comply with the judgment and decree. Even in the judgment under appeal the learned Judge has observed in the para 11 of the judgment that the plaintiff has filed the contempt proceeding in order to secure the proper execution of decree. Thus in my considered view, no case for punishment for contempt is made out in the case. 18. Even in the judgment under appeal the learned Judge has observed in the para 11 of the judgment that the plaintiff has filed the contempt proceeding in order to secure the proper execution of decree. Thus in my considered view, no case for punishment for contempt is made out in the case. 18. So far as appellant No. 4 Nirmal Kumar Singh is concerned, it appears that in the affidavits filed by him in the contempt proceedingt he has only stated about the stand of the Corporation regarding the claim of the plaintiff. It cannot be inferred from the same that he intentionally disobeyed the judgment and decree of the Court. 19. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the judgment of the learned Single Judge punishing the appellant Nos. 2 to 4 is set aside. Before parting with this judgment, I may mention that the learned Single Judge in the judgmet, has made some observation against the executing Court to the effect that he has aided with the appellants. In my view, the said observation is not supported the materials on record and as such the same should be ignored. O.N.ASTHANA, J. 20 I agree.