Sabhahit, J.:— This contempt petition is filed on the averments that the complainant obtained an order of temporary injunction against the accused from the trial court in O.S No. 132 of 1976 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff, Tumkur. Subsequently he filed another suit O.S No. 297 of 1976 for declaration of title and injunction against the accused. In both the suits he obtained temporary injunction order. The said orders were confirmed by the first appellate Court. It is his case now that the defendants in the suits, through their agents, have started disobeying the injunction order. Hence, the present petition for contempt of Court. It is against the State of Karnataka, one Sri C. Srinivasan, Assistant Commissioner, Sri Aswathaiah, Block Development Officer, Sri Lakshman, Junior Engineer and the Sub-Inspector of Police and several others.
2. Order issued under I.A.I in O.S Nos. 132 of 1976 and 297 of 1976 dated 31-3-1980, passed by the Principal Munsiff at Tumkur Reads:
“I.A.I is allowed in both the suits in the following terms.
Temporary injunction is granted against the defendants in respect of the suit land excepting 1 acre 20 guntas lying between the boundaries as below;
To North: S. No. 9 To East S. No. 6 which is Gramathana.
To South Remaining extent. To West-Road and Re. S. No. 2.”
3. Against this common order plaintiff went up in Appeal before the Civil Judge, Tumkur, at M.A No. 8 of 1980. On hearing the learned Civil Judge passed an ad interim order on 7-4-1980 in the following terms:
“Injunction granted restraining the respondents 5, 6, 8, 9, 15 & 16 from interfering with applicants possession of the suit property pending disposal of the appeal. Issue order accordingly with notice of the application to all the respondents returnable by hearing date.”
4. Thereafter the present petition for contempt is filed by the plaintiff before this court on 6-6-1980. The complainant has also averred in the petition, that he filed a complaint against some of the present accused for rioting etc. before the police.
5. In cases of disobedience or breach of injunction order issued temporarily during the pendency of a suit, either under Rule 1 or 2 of Order 39, C.P.C action is contemplated by the very court which issues the injunction order under Rule 2A of Order 39, C.P.C It contemplates the forfeiture of property as also putting of the person who commits breach into civil prison for a period not exceeding three months. The provision thereunder is obviously based on the principle of contempt of Court.
6. That being so, the general provisions made under the Contempt of Courts Act cannot be invoked by the decree holder, for forcing the party to obey the injunction order. It is a well settled principle of law that when there is special law and general law, the provisions of the special law prevail over the general law and when special procedure and special provision are contained in the C.P.C itself under Order 39 Rule 2A for taking action for the disobedience of an order of injunction, the general law of contempt of Court cannot be invoked. If such a course encouraged holding that it amounts to contempt of court, when an order of subordinate court is not obeyed, it is sure to throw open a floodgate of litigation under contempt jurisdiction. Every decree-holder can rush to this court stating that the decree passed by a subordinate court is not obeyed. That is not the purpose of Contempt of Courts Act.
7. The Supreme Court of India in the case Perspective Publications (Pvt.) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1971 SC 221) has observed at page 230, inter alia thus:—
“The summary jurisdiction by way of contempt must be exercised with great care and caution and only when its exercise is necessary for the proper administration of law and justice”. (Per Grover,) Contempt of court is essentially a matter which concerns the administration of justice and the dignity and authority of judicial tribunals. It is not a right of a party to be invoked for the redress of his grievances. It is not also a mode by which the rights of a party, adjudicated upon by a Tribunal can be enforced against another party. Moreover, if the matter, as in the present case, requires a detailed enquiry, it must be left to the court which passed the order and which presumably is fully acquainted with the subject-matter of its own order. When the matter relates to mere infringement of an order, as between parties, it is clearly inexpedient to invoke and exercise contempt jurisdiction as a mode of executing the order, merely because other remedies may take time or are more circumlocutory in character. Contempt jurisdiction should be reserved for what essentially brings the administration of justice into contempt or unduly weakens it (Vide (1964) 68 Cal WN 148 : AIR 1951 Pat 231 : AIR 1966 Mad 21 and AIR 1971 All 231).
8. Hence, we hold that the present petition which is merely directed by way of speedy executipn of an interim injunction order, which requires a detailed enquiry with regard to suit land and the scope of the order, which can be entertained and enquired into more properly under Rule 2A of Order 39 C.P.C cannot entertained under contempt jurisdiction and accordingly we dismiss it.
9. Petition dismissed.