ORDER
S.R. Bannurmath. J.
1. Alleging disobedience of the judgment and decree passed by the Vth Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in O.S.No. 9611/1998, the present contempt petition is filed. The complainant, who is the plaintiff in the said suit had prayed for decree of permanent injunction against the respondents who are alleged to be the contemnors. The said suit was heard and by the judgment dated 01-10-2004 allowed and by the decree the respondents – contemnors were restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. It is the grievance of the complainant that inspite of such decree, the respondents are causing obstruction and are not permitting the complainant – Society to carry on its day to day work in the formation of layout.
2. After hearing the learned Counsel for the complainant, in our view, as the decree passed by the Trial Court is executable, contempt cannot be remedy for the execution of the decree. In this regard, the learned Counsel has relied upon the two pronouncements of the Apex Court in the case of Prithawi Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. and Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla and Anr. v. Hind Rubber Industries Put. Ltd., etc. to contend that whenever there is disobedience, it is open to the Court to exercise contempt jurisdiction.
3. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the complainant himself, in the case of Prithawi Nath Ram, the Apex Court has explained the scope and jurisdiction of the Courts dealing with contempt matter exercising the jurisdiction under Sections 11 and 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act. In this decision as well as the second decision, which are cases of violation of interim orders and as such, it was held that even if the interim order is subsequently vacated or relief refused in the main proceeding, the other party cannot take that as a defense for disobedience of any interim order passed by the Court. There is no dispute about this proposition. Since disobedience of interim orders whatever nature cannot be executed and as such parties can initiate contempt proceedings for the violation. However, so far as final decrees are concerned, like the one on hand, these decrees are executable decrees and the decree holder has to get the decree executed for which separate machinery is provided. If the argument of the learned Counsel for the complainant is accepted, then in every case, where judgment and decree is not complied for whatever reasons, inspite of taking recourse to the execution, it would permit the decree holder to file contempt petitions of the present nature which will open Pandora’s Box and as such, since the decree in question is executable and if the respondents are not complying with the decree, the only course open to the complainant is to get the decree executed through proper machinery. Hence, we find the contempt petition is misconceived and is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the same is rejected.