{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEPT PETITION NO. 105 OF 2008 Jubeedabee w/o Gulam Rasul Bagwan APPLICANT VERSUS S.S.Beldar & another RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. H.D.Patil h/f Mr.P.S.Patil, Advocate for petitioner Mr. M.K.Goyanka, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2 ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 19th March 2010 PER COURT: 1. Today, learned counsel for the respondents has filed affidavit in reply, copy of which is furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Heard. By this contempt petition, the petitioner has prayed to take action against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act, as though the First Appeal was compromised in Lokadalat wherein it was agreed that the respondents, by way of award, would pay Rs.40,000/- to the petitioner within a period of 2 months, yet according to learned counsel for the petitioner, instead of depositing Rs.40,000/-, the respondents have deposited Rs. {2} 35,553/- only. 3. Though the First appeal was compromised in Lokadalat yet a compromise decree was passed and the said decree is executable. If the compromise decree is not satisfied by the Judgment Debtors, then the appropriate procedure is to file execution proceedings for recovery of the decreetal amount. However, it appears that instead of filing execution proceedings for recovery of the balance decreetal amount, shortcut method is adopted by the petitioner by moving this Court by way of contempt petition for recovery of the balance decreetal amount. This is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to file execution proceedings for recovery of the balance decreetal amount. In the result, the contempt petition which is sans merits stands dismissed. Respondents are discharged. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/cp105-08