IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CCC NO.461 OF 2019 (CIVIL) BETWEEN:
SRI T.K. CHIKKEGOWDA SON OF LATE KARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER T.C. VIJENDRA SON OF T.K. CHIKKEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT THELAGANAKUPPE VILLAGE RAVANDUR HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT.
(BY SRI:B.S. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. MR. KRISHNA CHIEF OFFICER PERIYAPATNA MUNICIPALITY PERIYAPATNA TOWN MYSURU DISTRICT.
...COMPLAINANT 2. SMT. SUNDRA BAI WIFE OF ARJUN LAL JAIN AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RESIDING AT B.M. ROAD, SANTE PETE PERIYAPATNA TOWN MYSURU DISTRICT.
...ACCUSED THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 10 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2 AND PUNISH THEM FOR WILFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.10.2001, PASSED IN O.S.NO.53 OF 1998, ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DIVN) AT HUNSUR AND CONFIRMED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.147 OF 2002, DATED 16.11.2009.
***** THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition is filed on the ground that the order dated 04.10.2001 passed in O.S.No.53 of 1998 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC at Hunsur and the order dated 16.11.2009 passed in Regular First Appeal No.147 of 2002 by learned Division Bench of this Court, have been disobeyed.
2. In terms of the said order, the Trial Court has partly decreed the suit and granted decree in favour of the plaintiffs and the same came to be confirmed in the appeal filed by the respondent No.2 herein. In spite of the same, it is pleaded that notwithstanding the decree, there is a gross violation committed by respondent No.2 herein.
3. On hearing the complainant’s Counsel, we do not find any grounds to proceed further in the matter. The decree having been obtained through the appropriate Civil Court, the remedy of the complainant is elsewhere to execute the judgment and decree. The contempt Court is not a Court for execution. Once the decree is obtained, the complainant very well knows as to how to get the decree executed. Hence, we find that no contempt is committed.
The petition is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE *bgn/-