HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SINGLE BENCH:HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY K. AGRAWAL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contempt Case (C) No.322 of 2014
APPLICANT : Itwar Singh
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS Ganeshram and Another
CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present :
Shri Praveen Dhurandhar, counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, counsel for the respondent No.1
and 2.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORAL ORDER
(Passed on 02.02.2015)
8. Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines
“civil contempt” to mean “willful disobedience to any
judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a
court”, thus the contempt proceeding can be initiated for
willful disobedience to comply with or carryout an order made
in favour of a party.
9. Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides
manner of executing the decree for an injunction. Order 21
Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides as under:-
“Rule 32. Decree for specific performance for
restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction.-
(1) Where the party against whom a decree for specific
performance of a contract, or for restitution of conjugal
rights or for an injunction, has been passed, has had
an opportunity of obeying the decree and has wilfully
failed to obey it, the decree may be enforced [in the
case of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights by the
attachment of his property or, in the case of a decree
for the specific performance of a contract or for an
injunction] by his detention in the civil prison, or by the
attachment of his property, or by both.
(2) ................
(3) ...............
(4) Where the judgment-debtor has obeyed the decree
and paid all costs of executing the same which he is
bound to pay, or where, at the end of a [six months]
from the date of the attachment, no application to have
5
the property sold has been made, or if made has been
refused, the attachment shall cease.
(5) Where a decree for the specific performance of a
contract or for an injunction has not been obeyed, the
Court may, in lieu of or in addition to all or any of the
processes aforesaid, direct that the act required to be
done may be done so far as practicable by the decreeholder
or some other person appointed by the Court, at
the cost of the judgment-debtor, and upon the act
being done the expenses incurred may be ascertained
in such manner as the Court may direct and may be
recovered as if they were included in the decree.
[Explanation.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby
declared that the expression " the act required to be
done" covers prohibitory as well as mandatory
injunctions.";]”
10. It is well settled law that the contempt proceeding is not like a
execution proceeding under the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908. In the matter of Niaz Mohammad and others v. State
of Haryana and others1, their Lordships of the Supreme
Court pointed out the distinction between the contempt and
execution proceeding by observing as under:-
“9…… The party in whose favour an order has been
passed, is entitled to the benefit of such order. The
court while considering the issue as to whether the
alleged contemner should be punished for not having
complied with and carried out the direction of the court,
has to take into consideration all facts and
circumstances of a particular case. That is why the
framers of the Act while defining civil contempt, have
said that it must be wilful disobedience to any
judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other
process of a court. Before a contemner is punished for
non-compliance of the direction of a court, the court
must not only be satisfied about the disobedience of
any judgment, decree, direction or writ but should also
1 (1994) 6 SCC 332
6
be satisfied that such disobedience was wilful and
intentional. The civil court while executing a decree
against the judgment-debtor is not concerned and
bothered whether the disobedience to any judgment,
or decree, was wilful. Once a decree has been passed
it is the duty of the court to execute the decree
whatever may be consequence thereof. But while
examining the grievance of the person who has
invoked the jurisdiction of the court to initiate the
proceeding for contempt for disobedience of its order,
before any such contemner is held guilty and
punished, the court has to record a finding that such
disobedience was wilful and intentional………”

свернуть