Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1980 (RAJ)

Sohan Lal v. Parsa

2011-09-14

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2011
Hon'ble VYAS, J.—In this contempt petition, the petitioner has prayed for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents and to punish them suitably for non-compliance of the judgment and decree dated 17.4.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Rajsamand in Civil Case No. 14/99. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the suit filed by the petitioner for permanent injunction a decree was passed in favour of the petitioner restraining the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful enjoyment and user of the premises in question; but, after passing of the said decree in favour of the petitioner repeatedly the respondents are flouting the order of the civil Court. For the same, the petitioner filed police complaint and contempt petition under Section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 but the civil Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for contempt filed under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 observing therein that this power can be exercised by the High Court. Therefore, the petitioner has preferred contempt petition before this Court under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 3. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention towards judgment reported in 2002(2) WLC 333, Banwari Lal & Others vs. Shiv Dayal. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that proper forum for execution of the decree is execution proceedings before the civil Court but the petitioner without taking recourse to the execution proceedings is trying to seek interference of this Court under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that though such power can be exercised but, here, in this case, without taking recourse to the remedy of execution proceedings straight away the petitioner has prayed for interference for alleged disobedience under Section 10 of the Act which is not permissible as per judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.N. Dey & Others vs. Bhagyabati Pramanik & Others, 2000 (5) SRJ 313, in which, it has been held that weapon of contempt is not to be used in abundance or misused. Normally, it cannot be used for execution of the decree or implementation of an order for which alternative remedy in law is provided for. Therefore, this petition filed under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act may be dismissed. 5. Normally, it cannot be used for execution of the decree or implementation of an order for which alternative remedy in law is provided for. Therefore, this petition filed under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act may be dismissed. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act which reads as under: "10. Power of High Court to punish contempts of subordinate courts.- Every High Court shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction, powers and authority, in accordance with the same procedure and practice, in respect of contempts of courts subordinate to it as it has and exercises in respect of contempts of itself: Provided that no High Court shall take cognizance of a contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a court subordinate to it where such contempt is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code." 6. Upon perusal of the above section, it is true that there is provision that the High Court can exercise the same power and jurisdiction in accordance with same procedure in respect of Courts subordinate to it as exercised for contempt of itself. But, the said power cannot be exercised when alternative remedy of execution is available to the litigant. In para 7 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of R.N. Dey & Others vs. Bhagyabati Pramanik & Others (supra), following adjudication has been made: "7. We may reiterate that weapon of contempt is not to be used in abundance or misused. Normally, it cannot be used for execution of the decree or implementation of an order for which alternative remedy in law is provided for. Discretion given to the Court is to be exercised for maintenance of Court's dignity and majesty of law. Further, an aggrieved party has no right to insist that Court should exercise such jurisdiction as contempt is between a contemnor and the Court...." 7. While following the above adjudication, I am not inclined to interfere in this contempt petition filed under Section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act. 8. Hence, this contempt petition is dismissed.