The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appropriate remedy for the violation of a court order is to file an execution petition under Order 21 Rule 32 of CPC, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Contempt Petition is filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondent for disobeying the order passed by this Court in S.A.No.1498 of 2005 dated 06.12.2006 and upon the undertaking given by the respondent.)

This contempt petition has been filed by the respondent in S.A.No.1498 of 2005 under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondent herein / appellant for disobeying the order passed by this court in S.A.No.1498 of 2005 dated 06.12.2006 upon the undertaking given by the respondent herein.

2. According to the petitioner, he filed a suit in O.S.No.3245 of 1999 on the file of the II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, for the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the respondent herein from putting up any construction over the suit property and the said suit was decreed on 31.07.2003. As against the same, the respondent herein had filed an appeal in A.S.No.43 of 2004 on the file of the VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and the said appeal was dismissed on 23.03.2005 and thereby confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent herein had filed a second appeal in S.A.No.1498 of 2005 before this court and during pendency of the said second appeal, the respondent’s representative had filed an affidavit undertaking that the appellant Corporation has no intention to put up construction over the suit property. Based on the said undertaking, this court had dismissed the second appeal on 06.12.2006.

3. But, contrary to the said undertaking, the respondent herein has put up constructions in the suit property and the said fact was known to the petitioner on 18.12.2018. Hence, he issued a lawyer’s notice to the respondent calling upon him to stop such violence. But, the respondent did not stop the construction and hence, the petitioner has filed the present petition to punish the respondent under the Contempt of Courts Act.

4. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the petition is misconceived. He further stated that the petitioner has to work out his remedies, in the case of alleged breach of undertaking by the respondent Corporation, in a manner known to law. He further stated that due to damage to the buildings, leakages at places, it was becoming difficult for the Corporation to maintain the dispensing units and automation systems and hence, it has put up a temporary room with asbestos roofing for housing the electronic equipments like CCTV, Automation, PCs., etc., and also an electrical room. Ladies’ and Gents’ toilets were also provided in line with the ‘Swatchh Bharat Abhiyan’ initiated by the Government of India in public interest. He further stated that the said temporary constructions can be dismantled at any time. He further stated that the respondent has not violated the order of this court and in the event of this court coming to the conclusion that the respondent has violated the order of this court dated 06.12.2006 in S.A.No.1498 of 2005, he tendered unconditional apology and recording the same, this contempt petition may be closed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rama Narang Vs. Ramesh Narang & Another (Contempt Petition (Civil) 148 of 2003) dated 15.03.2007 has contended that the violation of the undertaking given before this court would amount to contempt and therefore, he prayed to punish the respondent under the Contempt of Courts Act.

6. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. High Court of Delhi (2012) 4 SCC 307 has contended that the remedy available to the petitioner is that he has to file an execution petition by invoking the provisions under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC and instead of that, he cannot file a petition under the Contempt of Courts Act.

7. In Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. High Court of Delhi (cited supra), th