H.G. Ramesh, J.

1. Whether contempt jurisdiction can be invoked for enforcement of a decree passed in a civil suit? This is the question that requires to be answered in this case and is answered as follows:

The appropriate course for a decree holder is to approach the Executing Court for enforcement of the decree and not to invoke contempt jurisdiction unless exceptional circumstances exist.

2. In this petition, complainant is seeking to initiate action against the accused alleging disobedience of the judgment and decree dated 05.04.2014 passed by the Court of Additional II Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in the suit in O.S. No. 632/2011 granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs’ possession of the suit property without due process of law.

3. Sri A.S. Ponnanna, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the accused submits that, this petition to initiate action for contempt of court for alleged disobedience of the aforesaid decree of permanent injunction is not maintainable in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi, (2012) 4 SCC 307. He specifically referred to the following at paras 18 & 19 thereof:

“18. In case there is a grievance of non-compliance with the terms of the decree passed in the civil suit, the remedy available to the aggrieved person is to approach the execution court under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC which provides for elaborate proceedings in which the parties can adduce their evidence and can examine and cross-examine the witnesses as opposed to the proceedings in contempt which are summary in nature. Application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC is not maintainable once the suit stood decreed. Law does not permit to skip the remedies available under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC and resort to the contempt proceedings for the reason that the court has to exercise its discretion under the 1971 Act when an effective and alternative remedy is not available to the person concerned. Thus, when the matter relates to the infringement of a decree or decretal order embodies rights, as between the parties, it is not expedient to invoke and exercise contempt jurisdiction, in essence, as a mode of executing the decree or merely because other remedies may take time or are more circumlocutory in character. Thus, the violation of permanent injunction can be set right in executing the proceedings and not the contempt proceedings. ……………………………………………

19. ……………. The contempt jurisdiction cannot be used for enforcement of decree passed in a civil suit.” (Underlining supplied)

4. Sri B.V. Shankara Narayana Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the complainant, in support of the petition, referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Mahinder C.Mehta, (2007) 13 SCC 220 and also to a decision of the Bombay High Court in Rajinder Kumar Malhotra v. Paresh Biharilal Vyas, (2016) 2 Bom CR 678.

5. We have examined the matter in the light of the aforesaid three decisions. In the light of Kanwar Singh Saini which is extracted above, the appropriate course for a decree holder is to approach the Executing Court for enforcement of the decree and not to invoke contempt jurisdiction unless exceptional circumstances exist. Relating to the exceptional circumstances, the following observations made by the Supreme Court in Kanwar Singh Saini may be noticed:

“29. In a given case if the court grants time to a tenant to vacate the tenanted premises and the tenant files an undertaking to vacate the same after expiry of the said time, but does not vacate the same, the situation would be altogether different. (See: Sakharan Ganesh Aaravandekar v. Mahadeo Vinayak Mathkar, (2008) 10 SCC 186 and Mahender Kumar Gandhi v. Mohd. Tajer Ali, (2008) 10 SCC 795).

30. In an appropriate case where exceptional circumstances exist, the court may also resort to the provisions applicable in case of civil contempt, in case of violation/breach of