ORDER I.M. Quddusi, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The present contempt petition has been filed with the prayer that this Court may punish the opposite parties in accordance with law for disobeying the judgment and decree of the civil Court dated 13-8-1997.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the father of the applicant filed a suit for permanent injunction against the opposite parties including Gaon Sabha and State of Uttar Pradesh for restraining them by a perpetual injunction from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff. An ex parte decree was passed in his favour on 31 -1 -1985. This was regarding plot No. 554 area 4.7 Biswas of village Patpatia Taluqa Ashao, Pargana Tahsil and district Bhadohi. Thereafter the Deputy Collector Bhadohi passed an order on 13-8-1997 on the application of the Pradhan of the village on the basis of the report of the Lekhpal in case No. 32 of 1997 to the effect that the enquiry has been made and the application for restoration is rejected. It appears that earlier also some order had been passed and application for restoration had been moved. In the meantime the father of the applicant died on 13-10-1996. It had been alleged that in view of this the Sub-Divisional Officer (Up Zila-Adhikari) wilfully disobeyed the judgment and decree of the Civil Court by not setting aside the order dated 11-8-1997 and permitting disturbance in peaceful possession of the applicant on the disputed land the order defying the judgment and decree amounts to wilful disobedience of the civil court.
4. The learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court towards the definition of 'Civil Contempt' which is given in Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, which is reproduced as under :-
2(b) "Civil contempt" means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a Court.
He has further drawn the attention of this Court towards Section 10 of the said Act in which it has been provided that every High Court shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction, powers and authority, in accordance with the same procedure and practice, in respect of contempt of courts subordinate to it as it has and exercises in respect of contempt of itself. The present contempt petition has been filed with the allegations that the opposite parties are defying the decree of the Civil Court.
5. Of course, this Court has wide powers to issue contempt notice and punish the persons under the Contempt of Courts Act but the question of consideration is that when a decree can be executed under the provisions of O. 21, C. P. C. this Court should interfere and punish the persons who are defying! the decree.
6. In U. P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Employees Association, Lucknow v. Sri D.C. Nautival, Managing Director 1991 (9) LCD 583, a Division Bench has held that the principle of merger applies to appeals. It does not apply to the proceedings under Article 225 of the Constitution of India, and hence it cannot, therefore, be said that the award of the Labour Court has merged in the judgment of this Court. The award of the Labour Court is executable under Section 33(c) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. There is no occasion, therefore, for the applicant to make the application for contempt. In view of the procedure prescribed by U. P. Industrial Disputes Act itself for obtaining compliance of the award, there is no occasion to issue notice to the opposite party under the Contempt of Courts Act. Failure to comply with the award is punishable under Section 14-A of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act.
7. Besides the above discussion one thing is also to be noticed that in some revenue matters concerning agricultural land the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit and pass a decree and in case the civil Court had passed a decree the same would be a nullity. If this Court entertains the contempt petition and issues notices, the fact whether the decree was a nullity or not will not be liable to be considered in the contempt proceedings. For this purpose a specific provision has been made under O. XXI, C. P. C. and the parties have been given a right to raise objections in case the execution of the decree is proceeded with and issuing of notice by this Court under the Contempt of Courts Act will certainly jeopardy the rights of the parties to raise objection, which is their statutory right. Moreover, in case this Court entertains the contempt petition for the alleged dis-obedience of the decree passed by a civil Court, no decree-holder would like to take recourse of law for getting his decree executed through proper forum and will invariably file contempt petitions directly in this Court which is not in the interest of justice.
8. For the reasons stated 1 am of .the opinion that this is not a fit case for taking contempt proceedings against the opposite parties. The petition fails and is dismissed.