IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.377 of 2008 RAJDEO PRASAD VERMA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Indradeo Prasad, Adv. For Respondent : Mr. Shivajeenath, A.A.G. 4. ------------ 16.05.2008 This letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 12th March, 2008 whereby the Single Judge rejected the application seeking review of the order dated 11th September, 2008 by which the application under Contempt of Courts Act was dismissed. We wanted to know from the counsel for the appellant as to how the Letters Patent Appeal was maintainable from the impugned order. Our attention has been drawn towards Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. Vrs. Smt. Sharda Devi ; reported in 1997(1) P.L.J.R. 151. He also referred to an order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 21st February, 2002 passed in L.P.A. No. 68 of 2002, Ranji Manjhi and others Vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors. The grievance of the appellant is that despite a decree passed by the Munsif, Jehanabad way back in the year 1982, its compliance has not been made by the respondents. The appellant applied under the Contempt of Courts Act for non- compliance of the decree dated 25.11.1982 by filing M.J.C. No. 2943 of 2006. The said application was dismissed by the Single Judge vide order dated 11.9.2007. The appellant made an application seeking review of the order dated 11.9.2007 vide Civil Review No. 193 of 2007. The said - 2 - review application has also been dismissed by the Single Judge on 12th March , 2008. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been preferred. In view of the facts which are available in the court, we have no hesitation in observing that not only the Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable but also the process of contempt has been abused by the appellant. The fact of the matter is that after the decree was passed in his favour , the appellant applied for execution of the said decree. The executing Court passed an order on 10th May, 1984. After having already applied for execution of the decree dated 25.11.1982 by moving the executing Court and the executing court having passed an order dated 10th May, 1984, there is no semblance of justification for the appellant in applying for contempt before this Court. The Code of Civil Procedure provides for execution of the decree passed by Civil Court and that was availed of by the appellant. Moreover, having slipped into slumber for more than two decades, now the contempt jurisdiction is sought to be invoked by the appellant alleging that there was non-compliance of the decree dated 25.11.1982. To say the least, the contempt application is an abuse of the process of the court and rightly not entertained by the Single Judge. The application seeking review of the order dated 11.9.2007 was equally misconceived and, therefore, rightly rejected by the Single Judge vide impugned order dated 12th March, 2008. In what we have said above, it is not necessary to refer to the two decision cited by the counsel at length. - 3 - The appeal has no merit. Besides that it is not maintainable as well . Appeal is dismissed accordingly. The interlocutory application seeking condonation of delay stands disposed of accordingly. B.Tiwary/ R. M. Lodha, C.J. C.K.Prasad, J.