JUDGMENT Bakhshish Kaur, J. - The petitioner has filed this contempt petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act (in short the Act). It is alleged that the respondents have deliberately violated the decree passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patti. 2. Gajjan Singh-petitioner claiming himself to be in possession of the land measuring 9 kanals 7 marlas (as mentioned in the judgment Annexure P-1 but 7 kanals; 9 marlas as mentioned in the petition) filed a civil suit No. 145 of 20.6.2000 for permanent injunction restraining Balkar Singh, Anokh Singh and Bikkar Singh from dispossessing him forcibly except in due course of law. 3. Bikkar Singh and other defendants though contested the claim of the petitioner, did not lead any evidence to support their pleas raised in the written statement, therefore, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patti decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner. Copy of the judgment is Annexure P-1. 4. On November 9, 2000, as averred in the petition, respondent Nos. 1 to 9 along with three policemen, came to the fields of the petitioner and started ploughing the fields with tractor. The petitioner pleaded with them not to damage the wheat crop sown by him. He had also submitted certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 3.11.2000 and apprised them of the situation that he is in possession of the land for the last 20 years. Shri Tarsem Lal, Assistant Sub Inspector before whom the order was produced tore away the copy of the order and remarked that in the area he is the sole authority and this piece of the paper is not help to the petitioner. The petitioner has also met respectables of the village and the matter was taken by Shri V.K. Malhotra, President of All India Welfare Sangarsh Committee and representations were sent along with copy of the decree as well as revenue record to Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court, D.G.P. Chandigarh, I.G. Amritsar, D.C. Amritsar, SSP Tarn Taran, DSP Bhikhi Wind. The Deputy Superintendent of Police marked the representations for enquiry to the SHO Bhikhi Wind, but again the petitioner had to face the wrath of Shri Tarsem Lal, ASI-respondent No. 1 as he came to the house of the petitioner and in his absence threatened his family members of teaching the petitioner a lesson. 5. The Deputy Superintendent of Police marked the representations for enquiry to the SHO Bhikhi Wind, but again the petitioner had to face the wrath of Shri Tarsem Lal, ASI-respondent No. 1 as he came to the house of the petitioner and in his absence threatened his family members of teaching the petitioner a lesson. 5. In response to the show cause notices issued to the respondents, Tarsem Lal, ASI-respondent No. 1, Sukhwant Singh-respondent No. 2 for himself as well as on behalf of other respondents submitted joint reply. They have denied the averments contained in the petition. Respondent Nos. 2 to 10 have also raised a preliminary objection that the answering respondents were not party to the civil suit filed by the petitioner against his cousin brothers Balkar Singh and others, therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed as it amounts to misuse of the process of the Court. It is also denied that the petitioner is in possession of 7 kanals 9 marlas of land bearing Khatta No. 31, khatauni No. 128 and Killa No. 46/14/2.16. It is, however, admitted that the land belongs to Gurdwara Gurugranth Sahib and the Gurdwara Committee has been leasing out this land to different persons from time to time. 6. I have heard Shri J.S. Gill, learned counsel, for the petitioner and Shri B.R. Mahajan, learned counsel for the respondents. 7. A bare perusal of the judgment Annexure P-1 would indicate that the suit for permanent injunction was filed against Balkar Singh, Anokh Singh and Bikkar Singh and none of respondents were arrayed as defendants in the suit. Annexure P-2 is copy of the interlocutory order passed by the Vacation Judge, Patti on June 24, 2000. The suit was instituted on June 20, 2000. The defendants who had appeared before the trial Court i.e. the Vacation Judge had made the statement in the Court that they have no objection if the application of the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 CPC is allowed since the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land. 8. Whether any case is made out for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent ? 8. Whether any case is made out for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent ? Before doing so, the sequence of events resulting into the filing of the civil suit, passing of the ex parte decree in favour of the plaintiff, need to be taken into consideration and these are summarised as under :- (1) Civil suit for permanent injunction was filed during vacations on June 20, 2000; (2) Defendants to the suit immediately appeared before the Judge four days thereafter i.e. on June 24, 2000 and stated that they have no objection to the Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC; (3) The Vacation Judge adjourned the case to July 17, 2000 for filing of written statement; (4) On July 17, 2000 when the defendants filed the written statement, they raised a specific plea that the suit land is under the ownership of Gurdwara Guru Garanthsahib and the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land. The entries of Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawaris have been got effected by the plaintiff wrongly in his name in connivance with the revenue authorities. Whereas on June 24, 2000 they had made a contradictory statement that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land and the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC may be allowed. (5) The defendants to the suit are stated to be cousin brothers of Gajjan Singh-petitioner. 9. Upon the aforesaid circumstances, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed. A bare perusal of the judgment Annexure P-1 shows that the suit was not seriously contested by the defendants. Firstly, they had led no evidence. Secondly, counsel for the defendants did not press issue Nos. 2, 3 and 4 which related to the maintainability of the suit, especially the locus standi of the plaintiff in filing the suit. With this background, when the parties to the suit are closely related, everything was done in a hurried manner and above all, none of the respondents was a party to the civil suit, whether the act of the respondents complained of in this petition, would in any way attract the penal consequences as envisaged under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 10. In Dr. Bimal Chandra Sen, Delhi v. Mrs. 10. In Dr. Bimal Chandra Sen, Delhi v. Mrs. Kamla Mathur, Delhi and another, 1983 Crl.L.J. 495, it was held that the jurisdiction to punish for disobedience of the injunction orders vests in the Court which granted the injunction. The High Court has power under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, but the exercise of that power is discretionary. The disobedience of an injunction is a civil contempt. Strictly speaking, it does not fall within Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act. It is specifically dealt with in Order 39 of the Code. Section 2(b) which defines Civil contempt does not deal with the case of temporary injunctions because that subject is specifically dealt with in Order 39 CPC. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 2A confers on Courts the power to punish such contempt and, further, prescribes the punishment to be awarded therefore Not only this, a person who is not a party to the suit cannot be proceeded against for contempt for aiding and abetting the breach. 11. Under these circumstances, where the respondents were neither a party to the suit nor a specific order of restraint was passed against them, then no case is made out for initiating contempt proceedings against them. That is why the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings in contempt as also the jurisdiction to punish for contempt in spite of a case of contempt having been made out are both discretionary with the court. It has been observed in Om Parkash Jaiswal v. D.K. Mittal, 2000 AIR SCW 722, that the contempt generally and criminal contempt certainly is a matter between the court and the alleged contemnor. No one can compel or demand as of right initiation of proceedings for contempt. A jurisdiction in contempt shall be exercised only as a clear case having been made out. Mere technical contempt may not be taken note of. In Murray & Co. v. Ashok Kr. Newatia and another, JT 2000(1) 337 (S.C.), it has been held by the Honble Supreme Court in para 21 that unless the court is satisfied that contempt is of such a nature that the act complained of substantially interferes with the due course of justice, question of any punishment would not arise. In Murray & Co. v. Ashok Kr. Newatia and another, JT 2000(1) 337 (S.C.), it has been held by the Honble Supreme Court in para 21 that unless the court is satisfied that contempt is of such a nature that the act complained of substantially interferes with the due course of justice, question of any punishment would not arise. It is not enough that there should be some technical contempt of court but it must be shown that the act of contempt would otherwise substantially interfere with the due course of justice which has been equated with "due administration of justice. Further in para 24 it has been held that the Contempt of Courts Act puts an obligation on the Courts to assess the situation itself as regards the factum of any interference with the course of justice or due process of law. 12. The petitioner has already taken steps by proceeding against the respondents by submitting a complainant Annexure P-3. He is within his right to pursue the complaint and seek the redressal of his grievances. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, this petition is dismissed. My observations aforesaid be not construed as expression of opinion which may ultimately affect the criminal proceedings initiated by the petitioner against the respondents. Petition dismissed.