- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR.PRASANNA B.VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

C.C.C NO.731 OF 2022 (CIVIL)

BETWEEN:

SRI VINOD KUMAR N

S/O SRI NAGARAJ NAIDU

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

R/O RAMA MANDIRA STREET

HANUR TOWN, HANUR ALUK

CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT – 571 439

... COMPLAINANT

(BY SRI SUMANTH L, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI SANTHOSH KASHYAP

S/O SRI RAM PRASAD, MAJOR

INSPECTOR OF POLICE

HANUR POLICE STATION

HANUR, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT – 571 439

... ACCUSED

2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

HOME DEPARTMENT

REPRESENTED BY ITS

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

VIDHANA SOUDHA

BENGALURU – 560 001

... PROFORMA RESPONDENT

(BY SRI V.SREENIDHI, AGA)

---

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE

CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE SUMMONS/

NOTICES TO THE ACCUSED PERSON AND HE MAY BROUGHT

BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT AND TRIED AND PUNISHED FOR

- 2 -

THE OFFENCE OF CONTEMPT OF COURT COMMITTED BY HIM BY

SHOWING

DELIBERATE

DISRESPECT

AND

BY

WILLFUL

DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER DATED 05.03.2022 PASSED BY

THE HON’BLE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC

AT KOLLEGAL IN EX.NO.3 OF 2021. A COPY OF THE ENTIRE

ORDER

SHEET

WHICH

INCLUDES

THE

SAID

ORDER

IS

HEREWITH SUBMITTED AS ANNEXURE-A.

THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO

CONFERENCING

THIS

DAY,

CHIEF

JUSTICE

MADE

THE

FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the complainant and

the learned Additional Government Advocate for the

accused.

2.

The grievance raised in the present contempt petition

is with regard to disobedience of the interlocutory order

dated 05.03.2022 passed by the learned Additional Civil

Judge and JMFC, Kollegal on I.A.No.1 in Ex.No.3/2021.

This Court, on 28.09.2022, after hearing the learned

counsel for the complainant, issued notice to accused No.1.

3.

The order dated 05.03.2022 passed in Ex.No.3/2021

reads thus:

“ORDERS ON I.A.NO.I FILED UNDER ORDER 21

RULE 32 READ WITH 151 OF CPC

I.A. No.1 filed by DHr U/O 21 Rule 32 R/W

Sec.151 of CPC requesting this court to direct the

inspector of Police, Hanur PS to aid the decree

holder in Execution of the decree by giving the

- 3 -

police

protection

to

the

application

schedule

property.

2. In support of application the Decree

Holder filed an affidavit and stated that, the Dhr

was filed suit for permanent injunction against the

Jdr in this court in OS No.31/2019. The said suit

has decreed on 20.10.2020. Inspite of the said

decree the Jdr did not stop his interference. Hence

the Dhr filed this execution petition. After service

of summons the Jdr remained silent. The

petitioner further stated that Jdr did not appear

before this court but continued his interference and

tried to tress pass into the application schedule

property to dispossess the petitioner. Hence this

application.

3. The petitioner to support to his application

relied upon the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble

Supreme court of India which is reported in

2018(2)

SCC

(Civ)

702

between

Raja

Venkateshwarlu & another V/s Mada Venkata

Subbaiah & another as follows:

No doubt, Order 21 Rule 32 proveds for

execution of a decree for injunction and more

specifically under sub rule (5) which read:-

Order 21 Rule 32 CPC reads as under:

“Decree for specific performance for restitution of

conjugal rights, or for an injunction.

(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 some

other person appointed by the court, as the

cost of the judgment debtor, and upon the

act being done the expenses incurred may

be ascertained in