139 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-1963-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.07.2026 DAVINDER SINGH ...Appellant Versus VARJEET WALIA AND OTHERS …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA Present : Mr. Rakesh Bhatia, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Jastej Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab. SUVIR SEHGAL, J. [ORAL] 1. This intra-court Appeal has been filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent, challenging order dated 22.05.2026 passed by a learned Single Judge on a petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short “the Act”). 2. Mr. Bhatia, counsel for the appellant has argued that a Civil Suit filed by the appellant along with two other plaintiffs was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 22.12.2023 (Annexure P-1) and appeal filed by the State of Punjab was rejected by the learned Additional GURPREET KAUR 2026.07.24 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1963-2026 (O&M) -2- District Judge, Patiala on 09.12.2025 (Annexure P-2). Counsel asserts that the decree passed by the trial Court was not implemented and the appellant submitted a representation dated 11.03.2026 (Annexure P-3) before invoking the jurisdiction under the Act. He submits that the Contempt Court has erred in dismissing the contempt petition on the ground that the appellant has an alternate remedy. 3. We have heard counsel for the appellant and considered his submissions. 4. Appellant is seeking execution of a judgment and decree passed by a Civil Court by instituting a contempt petition. In Chaburanga Panthraj Urs and another vs P. Ravi Kumar and others, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 971, Supreme Court has observed that weapon of contempt cannot be used for execution of a decree or implementation of an order for which an alternate remedy is provided for. Remedy for execution of a judgment and decree passed by a Civil Court lies elsewhere. Power under the Act is not meant for executing the decree of a Civil Court. Appellant has wrongly invoked the jurisdiction under the Act and his petition has been rightly rejected. Appellant has been granted a liberty to take recourse to the alternate remedy, yet he has approached this Court by filing an LPA, which is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. 5. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and is not inclined to interfere with the GURPREET KAUR 2026.07.24 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1963-2026 (O&M) -3- impugned order. Appeal is bereft of merit and is dismissed, though with no order as to costs. [SUVIR SEHGAL] JUDGE July 20, 2026 [DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA] gurpreet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No GURPREET KAUR 2026.07.24 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document