S. A. HAKEEM, J. ( 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. 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. ( 4 ) IN determining the question involved, the court has relied upon the ruling of the supreme court in Perspective Publications (P.) Ltd. And another v State of Maharashtra, in which it is stated thus: ( 5 ) WHILE the power to punish for wilful disobedience of a decree or Order of any court is undoubtedly vested in this court under the act, in our opinion, it is a question of expediency not to encourage the parties to invoke that jurisdiction when alternative effective remedy is provided under the law. ( 6 ) IN that view of the matter, this complaint is dismissed reserving liberty to the complainant to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law. Before parting with this matter, we make it clear that in considering the question whether there was any disobedience of the decree, the executing court shall not rely upon any of the observations in the report of the civil court submitted to this case, but to consider and dispose of the matter independently. --- *** --- .