Contempt proceedings are not intended to execute a decree, and a Court which has the power to initiate contempt proceedings, should not be equated to an executing Court.

1. Petitioner seeks initiation of contempt for punishing respondents herein for having committed civil contempt by disobeying the final order passed by this Court in Second Appeal No. 1170 of 1992 dated 12.7.1996, and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2. Petitioner, i.e., first applicant Arthur Theodore James, filed O.S. 6861 of 1969, on the file of City Civil Court, Madras, claiming partition. After trial, the City Civil Court passed a preliminary decree on 6.8.1977 declaring that plaintiff is entitled to one-third share in the property. Petitioner, thereafter, filed I.A. 25822 of 1977, for passing final decree. Commissioner was appointed to find out whether the properties are capable of division. In the meanwhile, defendant S.C. James filed A.S. 185 of 1978 against the preliminary decree, and it was dismissed by this Court on 4.10.1982. Against that, she preferred L.P.A. No. 19 of 1983, and it was also dismissed on 2.3.1988. After dismissal of those Appeals, final decree application was taken up, and, on the basis of Report filed by the Commissioner, final decree was passed on 11.11.1990. Defendant died, and in his place, his legal heirs were impleaded as defendants 2 to 4. Petitioner was allotted Plot A in the Commissioners Plan Ex. C-2 appended to the final decree. Defendants 1 to 4 were directed to put the plaintiff in possession of the property, and in respect of ‘B’ Schedule property in Tambaram, plaintiff was allotted the portion marked ‘A’ in the Commissioners Plan marked as Ex. C-3. Defendants 2 to 5, not satisfied with the allotment, filed A.S. 142 of 1991, on the file of City Civil Court, Madras. Appellate Court modified the final decree regarding pathway and confirmed the allotment. Defendants 2 to 5 filed Second Appeal No. 1175 of 19 92, before this Court, and it was dismissed.

3. After conclusion of all these proceedings, first applicant herein (who is now no more) filed E.P. 8787 of 1996, for effecting division by appointment of Commissioner, in accordance with the final decree passed by the Court.

4. Respondents herein filed a counter stating that third party has been granted leease in respect of the property and there is a superstructure at the eastern end of the portion allotted to the applicant in the final decree, and this superstructure did not exist in 1979 and, therefore, the property cannot be delivered. Thereafter, respondents 1 to 4 herein also filed an application under Sec. 47, C.P.C. It was withdrawn, and, at their instance, one Savarinathan filed O.S. 317 of 1998 claiming to be tenant of the petitioners deceased brother. It is said that defendants 1 to 4, i.e., respondents 1 to 4 herein and Savarinathan are colluding together and are obstructing the execution of the decree which the first applicant had obtained. First applicant was aged 73 years at the time when he filed this Contempt Application and now he is no more and his legal representatives have further prosecuted the matter. According to them, respondents herein are preventing the administration of justice, and, therefore, they are liable to be punished for contempt. Hence, this Contempt Application.

5. First applicant filed an application for appointment of a Receiver in respect of the property which was allotted to him in the final decree.

6. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1, 2 and 4, stating that there is neither civil contempt nor criminal contempt, and contempt proceedings should not be converted as one to execute decree. The allegation that respondents are preventing execution of the decree and are abusing process of Court are denied. If is said that preferring an appeal is the vested right of a citizen, and it will not amount to obstruction of judicial process. They prayed for dismissal of the Contempt Application.

7. Respondents submit that they are not claiming any right over the property allotted to the petitioner. The submission o