Contempt proceedings are not a substitute for execution; the appropriate remedy for injunction violations lies in execution under the CPC.

1. Invoking contempt jurisdiction of this Court under S.12 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Art.215 of the Constitution of India this contempt petition has been filed complaining, non - compliance of judgment and decree for injunction dated 02/02/2007 passed by the First Civil Judge Class - II, Durg in matter of Itwar Singh and Another v. Gram Panchayat Achhoti and Others, granting decree for permanent injunction in favour of applicant / plaintiff and restraining the respondent No. 2 / contemnor and other defendants therein from interfering with his peaceful possession.

2. The applicant herein Itwar Singh and Rohit Kumar instituted a Civil Suit No. 34 - A / 2006 before the jurisdictional Civil Court (First Civil Judge Class - II, Durg) for seeking declaration of their title and permanent injunction restraining the defendant Gram Panchayat and thirty others from interfering with their peaceful possession. The said Court by its judgment and decree for injunction dated 02/02/2007 decreed the suit holding that the defendants therein had no right to make an encroachment over the suit land and restrained them from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs.

3. Thereafter, present applicant filed an application under O.39 R.2A of CPC for breach of injunction order stating inter alia that the present respondents / contemnors had dismantled the Iron Gate affixed by the applicant in breach of decree for permanent injunction granted by the Civil Court, and therefore, they are liable to be punished. It is case of the applicant herein that the said application was dismissed by the said Court finding the said application not maintainable in law by order dated 18/07/2014.

4. The applicant has now preferred contempt petition under Art.215 of the Constitution of India read with S.10 & S.12 of Contempt of Courts Act for initiating contempt proceeding against the respondent herein for breach of decree for injunction granted by the Civil Court on 02/02/2007 stating inter alia that the respondents / contemnors had dismantled the Iron Gate affixed by the applicant in breach of decree for permanent injunction granted by the Civil Court and therefore, the respondents / contemnors deserves to be punished for the breach of decree for injunction granted by the Civil Court.

5. Shri. Praveen Dhurandhar, learned counsel appearing for the contempt petitioner would submit that the respondents / contemnors have deliberately violated the decree for perpetual injunction granted by the Civil Court on 02/02/2007 by dismantling the Iron Gate and as such the proceeding for contempt be initiated against them for the deliberate non - compliance of the Court's order.

6. Shri. Ajay Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondents / contemnors would submit that the decree for perpetual injunction is executable decree under O.21 R.32 of Code of Civil Procedure and as such contempt petition framed and filed is not maintainable in law and deserves to be dismissed.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and given thoughtful consideration to the submission made therein.

8. S.2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines "civil contempt" to mean "willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court", thus the contempt proceeding can be initiated for willful disobedience to comply with or carryout an order made in favour of a party.

9. O.21 R.32 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides manner of executing the decree for an injunction. O.21 R.32 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides as under:
"32. Decree