AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.—The grievance of the petitioner before this court is that a decree of mandatory injunction in favour of the petitioner directing the defendant/respondent to permit the petitioner to deposit the sale consideration in respect of the suit land under the scheme and to execute a proper conveyance deed in that regard in their favour was passed. However, the respondents have failed to comply with the aforesaid decree. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the non-compliance of the aforesaid decree amounts to contempt as defined u/s 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Admittedly, the petitioner has an effective remedy for execution of the aforesaid decree under Order 21, Rule 32 of the Civil Procedure Code. A person who has got an effective alternative remedy of the nature specified under Order 21, Rule 32 CPC should not be ordinarily permitted to take resort to initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act. The reliance can be placed in this regard on a judgment cited as Smt.Indu Tewari v. Ram Bahadur Chaudhari & Ors. AIR 1981 AIL 309.
Since the petitioner is having an effective remedy by execution of the decree in his favour, I am not inclined to proceed further in this petition.
Rule discharged.