MANU/KA/0896/2018

Equivalent Citation: 2018(184)AIC 759, ILR 2018 KARNATAKA 3457, 2018(3)KarLJ677, 2018(2)KC C R1781

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

CCC No. 862/2017 (CIVIL)
Decided On: 21.02.2018
Appellants: Padma
Vs.
Respondent: Rakesh Singh
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
H.G. Ramesh and B.M. Shyam Prasad, JJ.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: B.V. Shankara Narayana Rao, Advocate
For Respondents/Defendant: A.S. Ponnanna, Additional Advocate General for M.N.
Sudev Hegde, Advocate
Case Note:
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 - SECTIONS 10 AND 12-Contempt of Court
Case-Jurisdiction of the Contempt Court to enforce the decree passed in a
civil suit-
HELD,
The appropriate course for a decree holder is to approach the Executing
Court for enforcement of the decree and not to invoke contempt jurisdiction
unless exceptional circumstances exist. [1]
FURTHER HELD,
There is no exceptional circumstance in this case to resort to the contempt
jurisdiction to enforce the decree of permanent injunction granted in favour
of the complainant. Hence, the Court decline to entertain the contempt
petition with liberty to the complainant to approach the Executing Court
under Order 21 Rule 32 of CPC for enforcement of the decree. [5] and [6]
ORDER
H.G. Ramesh, J.
1. Whether contempt jurisdiction can be invoked for enforcement of a decree passed
in a civil suit? This is the question that requires to be answered in this case and is
answered as follows:
The appropriate course for a decree holder is to approach the Executing Court for
enforcement of the decree and not to invoke contempt jurisdiction unless exceptional
circumstances exist.
2 . In this petition, complainant is seeking to initiate action against the accused

14-09-2021 (Page 1 of 3) www.manupatra.com King & Partridge

alleging disobedience of the judgment and decree dated 05.04.2014 passed by the
Court of Additional II Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in the suit in
O.S. No. 632/2011 granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant from
interfering with the plaintiffs' possession of the suit property without due process of
law.
3. Sri A.S. Ponnanna, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the accused
submits that, this petition to initiate action for contempt of court for alleged
disobedience of the aforesaid decree of permanent injunction is not maintainable in
the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Kanwar Singh Saini v. High
Court of Delhi [MANU/SC/1111/2011 : (2012) 4 SCC 307]. He specifically referred to
the following at paras 18 & 19 thereof:
"18. In case there is a grievance of non-compliance with the terms of the
decree passed in the civil suit, the remedy available to the aggrieved person
is to approach the execution court under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC which
provides for elaborate proceedings in which the parties can adduce their
evidence and can examine and cross-examine the witnesses as opposed to
the proceedings in contempt which are summary in nature. Application under
Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC is not maintainable once the suit stood decreed. Law
does not permit to skip the remedies available under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC
and resort to the contempt proceedings for the reason that the court has to
exercise its discretion under the 1971 Act when an effective and alternative
remedy is not available to the person concerned. Thus, when the matter
relates to the infringement of a decree or decretal order embodies rights, as
between the parties, it is not expedient to invoke and exercise contempt
jurisdiction, in essence, as a mode of executing the decree or merely because
other remedies may take time or are more circumlocutory in character. Thus,
the violation of permanent injunction can be set right in executing the
proceedings and not the contempt
proceedings....................................................
19. ................ The contempt jurisdiction cannot be used for enforcement of
decree passed in a civil suit."
(Underlining supplied)
4 . Sri B.V. Shankara Narayana Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the complainant,
in support of the petition, referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in Maruti
Udyog Ltd. v. Mahinder C. Mehta [MANU/SC/4065/2007 : (2007) 13 SCC 220] and
also to a decision of the Bombay High Court in Rajinder Kumar Malhotra v. Paresh
Biharilal Vyas [MANU/MH/0107/2016 : (2016) 2 Bom CR 678].
5. We have examined the matter in the light of the aforesaid three decisions. In the
light of Kanwar Singh Saini which is extracted above, the appropriate course for a
decree holder is to approach the Executing Court for enforcement of the decree and
not to invoke contempt jurisdiction unless exceptional circumstances exist. Relating
to the exceptional circumstances, the following observations made by the Supreme
Court in Kanwar Singh Saini may be noticed:
"29. In a given case if the court grants time to a tenant to vacate the
tenanted premises and the tenant files an undertaking to vacate the same
after expiry of the said time, but does not vacate the same, the situation
would be altogether different. (See: Sakharan Ganesh Aaravandekar v.

14-09-2021 (Page 2 of 3) www.manupatra.com King & Partridge

 Mahadeo Vinayak Mathkar [MANU/SC/8683/2008 : (2008) 10 SCC 186] and
Mahender Kumar Gandhi v. Mohd. Tajer Ali [(2008) 10 SCC 795].
30. In an appropriate case where exceptional circumstances exist, the court
may also resort to the provisions applicable in case of civil contempt, in case
of violation/breach of undertaking/judgment/order or decree. However,
before passing any final order on such application, the court must satisfy
itself that there is violation of such judgment, decree, direction or order and
such disobedience is willful and intentional. Though in a case of execution of
a decree, the executing court may not be bothered whether the disobedience
of the decree is willful or not and the court is bound to execute a decree
whatever may be the consequence thereof. In a contempt proceeding, the
alleged contemnor may satisfy the court that disobedience has been under
some compelling circumstances, and in that situation, no punishment can be
awarded to him. .................................."
(Underlining supplied)
6 . There is no exceptional circumstance in this case to resort to the contempt
jurisdiction to enforce the decree of permanent injunction granted in favour of the
complainant. Hence, we decline to entertain this petition with liberty to the
complainant to approach the Executing Court under Order 21 Rule 32 of CPC for
enforcement of the decree. The petition is accordingly disposed of. In view of
disposal of the petition, IA No. 1/2017 filed for impleading does not survive for
consideration; it stands disposed of accordingly.
CCC disposed of.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

14-09-2021 (Page 3 of 3) www.manupatra.com King & Partridge