T.P.S. Mann, J.:- According to the petitioner, he, along with his brother is in exclusive ownership and in possession of two plots/Ghers situated within Lal Dora (Abadi deh) of village Lakhan Majra, Tehsil Meham. He filed a civil suit against respondents Om Chander and Pirthi for a decree of permanent injunction so as to restrain them from opening a Gali forcibly and from interfering in his peaceful possession over the suit land. The suit was finally decreed, though ex-parte, on March 13, 2007 by the learned trial Court and the defendants were restrained from opening the Gali forcibly and also from making interference in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. During the trial of the suit also, the petitioner had placed on record the site plan Ex.PW3/A prepared by the Draftsman, which showed the Gali as Gali Kucha Band. Inspite of the fact that the respondents were aware about the aforementioned judgment and decree passed by the civil Court, they all, in collusion with each other and in violation of the judgment/decree passed by the trial Court, forcibly opened the Gali on 18.1.2009 and, thus, interfered in the peaceful possession of the petitioner. Said act on the part of the respondents was intentional, deliberate and malafide and on that account, the respondents were liable to be punished under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

2. As is clear from the perusal of the contents of the petition as well as from the arguments submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is practically asking for execution of the decree, passed by the trial Court on March 13, 2007 whereby the respondents were restrained from opening the Gali forcibly and also from interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the suit property. In such a situation, the petitioner has the remedy under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure of executing the decree. The provision of law reads as under:

32. Decree for specific performance for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction (1) Where the party against whom a decree for the specific performance of a contract, or for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction, has been passed, has had an opportunity of obeying the decree and has willfully failed to obey it, the decree may be enforced in the case of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights by the attachment of his property or, in the case of a decree for the specific performance of a contract, or for an injunction by his detention in the civil prison, or by the attachment of his property, or by both.

(2) Where the party against whom a decree for specific performance or for an injunction has been passed is a corporation, the decree may be enforced by the attachment of the property of the corporation or, with the leave of the court, by the detention in the civil prison of the directors or other principal officers thereof, or by both attachment and detention.

(3) Where any attachment under sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2) has remained in force for six months if the judgment debtor has not obeyed the decree and the decree holder has applied to have the attached property sold, such property may be sold; and out of the proceeds the court may award to the decree holder such compensation as it thinks fit, and shall pay the balance (if any) to the judgment debtor on his application.

(4) Where the judgment debtor has obeyed the decree and paid all costs of executing the same which he is bound to pay, or where, at the end of six months from the date of the attachment, no application to have the property sold has been made, or if made has been refused, the attachment shall cease.

(5) Where a decree for the specific performance of a contract or for an injunction has not been obeyed, the court may, in lieu of or in addition to all or any of the processes aforesaid, direct that the act required to be done may be done so far as practicable by the decree holder or