Order.- After having heard learned Counsel, and very carefully considered the situation in which we are called upon to exercise our jurisdiction under section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act XXXII of 1952, we are clearly and definitely of the view that, assuming the facts to be as stated by the petitioner, it would not be expedient in the interests of justice to exercise that jurisdiction here, for more than one reason. We are taking it that there is a temporary prohibitory injunction decree made by the appellate Court, which has been disobeyed by the respondent, in the sense that he has erected certain buildings in infringement of that prohibitory injunction. In such a case, it is obvious that Order 39, rule 2 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, provides a clear and adequate remedy ; the party aggrieved may bring it to the notice of the Court granting the injunction, that its decree or order has not been respected, and that Court, after due enquiry, may exercise the punitive powers against the person to disobedience, under the terms of that rule.

Learned Counsel for petitioner strenuously contends that the existence of any such alternative remedy to his client, will not take away t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document