Madras High Court
The Idol Of Sangalaneer Pillayar vs Vijayalakshmi on 18 October, 2019
Author: P.Rajamanickam
Bench: P.Rajamanickam
CONT.P.D.No.126584/2018
in S.A.No.1375 of 1969
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.10.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM
CONT.P.D.No.126584 of 2018
in
S.A.No.1375 of 1969
The Idol of Sangalaneer Pillayar
In the temple of that zone,
Rep by its present hereditary trustee,
(vide resolution dated 21.03.1987)
Thiru. Kannan,
T.Palur Village,
Udyarpalayam Taluk,
Ariyalur District. ...Petitioner/2nd respondent
Vs.
Vijayalakshmi
The District Collector,
Ariyalur,
Ariyalur District
(Initially the respondent authority was in
Trichirapally District then it was
changed as Ariyalur District) ...Respondent/Appellant
PRAYER: Contempt Petition is filed under Section 11 of the Contempt
of Courts Act to punish the respondent for wilful disobedience of the
Judgment and Decree dated 26.11.1971 passed by this Court in
S.A.No.1375 of 1969.
For Petitioner : M/s. M.Senthil Vadivu
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/8
CONT.P.D.No.126584/2018
in S.A.No.1375 of 1969
ORDER
This Contempt Petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondent for wilfull disobedience of the judgment and decree passed by this court in S.A.No.1375 of 1969 dated 26.11.1971.
2. The Registry has listed this petition under the caption, ''for maintainability''.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner herein is one of the hereditary Trustees of the Idol of Sengalaneer Pillayar in the Sengalaneer Pillaiyar Temple, T.Palur Village of Ariyalur District. She further submitted that on behalf of the said Idol, a suit was filed in O.S.No.523 of 1964 on the file of the District Munsif, Ariyalur, against the respondent herein and two others for the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the respondent herein from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit propety viz., 92 cents situated in S.F.No.28/7 of T.Palur Village. She further submitted that the said suit was decreed by the judgment and decree dated 04.07.1966 and as against the same, the first defendant therein/respondent herein had filed an appeal in A.S.No.223 of 1967 http://www.judis.nic.in 2/8 CONT.P.D.No.126584/2018 in S.A.No.1375 of 1969 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Tiruchirapalli, and the learned Sub-Judge by the judgment dated 26.02.1968, had dismissed the said appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. She further submitted that feeling further aggrieved, the first defendant therein/respondent herein had filed a second appeal in S.A.No.1375 of 1969 on the file of this court and this court, by the judgment dated 26.11.1971 had dismissed the said second appeal confirming the judgments and decrees of the courts below. She further submitted that the respondent herein in utter violation of the decree passed in the aforesaid second appeal, now encouraging the third parties to encroach the suit propety by issuing 'B' memos and the said act of the respondent would amount to contempt of court and hence, the respondent has to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act.
4. Admittedly, a civil suit was filed in O.S.No.523 of 1964 on the file of the District Munsif, Ariyalur, for the relief of permanent injunction against the respondent herein and two others and the said suit was decreed on 04.07.1966. As against the said judgment and decree, the first defendant therein/respondent herein had filed an appeal on A.S.No.531 of 1966 on the file of the District Court, Tiruchirappalli and the same was transferred to Sub-Judge and re- numbered as A.S.No.228 of 1967 and the said appeal was dismissed http://www.judis.nic.in 3/8 CONT.P.D.No.126584/2018 in S.A.No.1375 of 1969 by the learned Sub-Judge by the judgment dated 26.02.1968 and thereby confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. Feeling further aggrieved, the first defendant therein/respondent herien had filed a second appeal in S.A.No.1375 of 1969 on the file of this court and this court also had confirmed the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below and dismissed the second appeal by the judgment dated 26.11.1971.
5. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to the decision in R.N. Dey And Others vs Bhagyabati Pramanik & Others on 19 April, 2000 (2000) 4 SCC 400 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph Nos.7 and 8 has observed as follows:
''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 Courts 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. It is true that in the present case, the High Court has kept the matter pending and has ordered that it should be heard along with the First Appeal. But, at the same time, it is to be noticed that under the coercion of contempt proceeding, appellants cannot be directed to pay the compensation amount which they are http://www.judis.nic.in 4/8 CONT.P.D.No.126584/2018 in S.A.No.1375 of 1969 disputing by asserting that claimants were not the owners of the property in question and that decree was obtained by suppressing the material fact and by fraud. Even presuming that claimants are entitled to recover the amount of compensation as awarded by the trial court as no stay order is granted by the High Court, at the most they are entitled to recover the same by executing the said award wherein the State can or may contend that the award is nullity. In such a situation, as there was no willful or deliberate disobedience of the order, the initiation of contempt proceedings was wholly unjustified.
8. Further, the decree-holder, who does not take steps to execute the decree in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law, should not be encouraged to invoke contempt jurisdiction of the court for non-satisfaction of the money decree. In land acquisition cases when a decree is passed the State is in the position of a judgment debtor and hence the court should not normally lend help to a party who refuses to take legally provided steps for executing the decree. At any rate, the court should be slow to haul up officers of the Government for contempt for non-
satisfaction of such money decree. ''
6. From the aforesaid decison, it is clear that the weapon of contempt cannot be used for the execution of the decree or implementation of the order, for which, alternative remedy of law is http://www.judis.nic.in 5/8 CONT.P.D.No.126584/2018 in S.A.No.1375 of 1969 provided for. It is also clear that an aggrieved party has no right to insist that the court should exercise such jurisdiction as contempt is between the contemnor and the court.
7. Following the aforesaid decision, this court in R.Jeyaraman Vs. Mrs. Mrs.Senthilkumari, Revenue Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition), Madurai (contempt petition (MD)No.724 of 2015) has observed that the failure to execute a decree in the manner known to law does not give a cause of action for filing a contempt petition. Further, it was held that it is for the decree holder to work out the remedy in the manner known to law and he cannot file a contempt petition.
8. Recently, in Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. High Court of Delhi (2012) 4 SCC 307, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that in case there is a grievance of non-compliance of 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 witness as opposed to the proceedings in contempt which are summary in nature. It has further held that the law does not permit to skip the http://www.judis.nic.in 6/8 CONT.P.D.No.126584/2018 in S.A.No.1375 of 1969 remedy 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 Act 1971 when an effective and alternative remedy is not available to the person concerned. Therefore, if the petitioner feels that the respondent had violated the decree passed by the civil court, he has to file an execution petition by invoking the provison under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC. Instead of that, he cannot file a contempt petition before this court. Therefore, this petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be rejected.
9. In the result, this petition is rejected as not maintainable. However, it is open to the petitioner to invoke the provisions of Order 21 Rule 32 CPC.
18.10.2019 gv To The District Collector, Ariyalur, Ariyalur District.
http://www.judis.nic.in 7/8 CONT.P.D.No.126584/2018 in S.A.No.1375 of 1969 P.RAJAMANICKAM.J., gv CONT.P.D.No.126584 of 2018 in S.A.No.1375 of 1969 18.10.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in 8/8