S. C. Mathur, A.C.J. - (1.) THE appellant, who was opposite party in contempt application, has directed this appeal against the order passed by a learned Single Judge on 14 July, 1993. By the said order the learned Single Judge has granted time to the appellant and Jai Krishan Goswami to deliver possession of the premises in question to* the respondent Suresh Chand Jain by 28th July, 1993. In case of failure to comply with this direction the respondent Suresh Chand Jain has been granted liberty to approach the District Judge who has been directed to take appropriate steps to get the premises vacated through police force after seeking the help of the District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police and to keep the possession of premises under his control till further orders of the Court.
(2.) THE respondent Suresh Chand Jain had obtained ex parte decree against the opposite parties in the contempt application, namely, Jai Krishan Goswami, Vijai Krishan Goswami and Smt. Manju Sharma for eviction from the property in question. This decree was affirmed on 22nd January, 1987. THE decree was challenged in this Court through the Writ Petition No. 2386 of 1987. THE writ petition was filed by the appellant and his brother, Jai Krishan Goswami and Smt. Manju Sharma was impleaded therein as a respondent. Smt. Manju Sharma did not put in appearance in the proceedings. THE writ petition was ultimately dismissed by judgment and order dated 12th May, 1992. Subject to the writ petitioners giving undertaking before the Judge Small Causes Court within three weeks of the receipt of certified copy of the judgment, to deliver possession to the respondent in vacant state, three months . time was allowed to the writ petitioners to vacate the premises in question. Against this judgment special leave petition was filed before their Lordships of the Supreme Court but the same was dismissed on 9th July, 1992. The present appellant Vijay Krishan Goswami filed undertaking before the Judge, Small Causes Court in terms of the directions contained in the judgment of this Court. It appears that the premises in question was not vacated and peaceful and vacant possession was not given to the landlord on the expiry of three months mentioned in the undertaking. The respondent- landlord, thereupon filed application for execution of the decree. In this execution case appellant's, brother, Jai Krishan Goswami filed objection under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for short the Code, stating that no undertaking had been furnished by him and he was not bound by the undertaking furnished by his brother, the present appellant. He also made an application for staying the execution of the decree. The executing Court refused to stay the execution, whereupon Jai Krishan Goswami filed writ petition in this Court. The writ petition was dismissed by judgment and order dated 18th August, 1992. Despite the undertaking and despite the dismissal of special leave petition and the writ petition of Jai Krishan Goswami, the respondent failed to obtain possession of the premises in question. The respondent thereupon filed application under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act against the present appellant, his, brother Jai Krishan and Smt. Manju Sharma. It was alleged in this application that the appellant and two other opposite parties had disobeyed Court's order dated 12th May, 1992 and were, therefore, liable to be punished. The prayers made in the application were : (i) to issue notice to respondents 1-, 2 and 3. (ii) to provide police force to the applicant and to direct respondents 1, 2 and 3 to deliver possession of the premises in dispute to the applicant at once. (iii) to punish respondents 1, 2 and 3 for the disobedience of the Court's order dated 12th May, 1992 passed by Honourable Mr. Justice S. C. Verma in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2386 of 1987-Jai Krishan Goswami and another v. The District Judge, Mathura and others.
(3.) ON the aforesaid application the learned Single Judge issued notice on 21st October, 1992 against all the three opposite parties directing them to show-cause why action for disobedience of the order dated 12th May, 1992 and the undertaking furnished by them on 2nd July, 1992 before the Additional Munsif, Mathura be not taken against them. After service of notice the appellant and his brother Jai Krishan Goswami appeared before the learned Single Judge on 12th May, 1993 through their respective counsel, Sri V. K. Burman and Sri Janardan Sahai. Sri Jai Krishan Goswami appeared personally also. The appellant Vijai Krishan Goswami was not present personally. Neither of them filed his return to the contempt notice. The learned Single Judge directed them to present on the next date of hearing viz. 14th July. 1993. Smt. Manju Sharma had remained unserved. Accordingly fresh notice was directed to be issued to her. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the order under appeal on the following grounds : (i) The order has been passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the appellant ; (ii) The order has been passed without recording any finding to the effect that the appellant has, in fact, committed contempt of Court ; (iii) Under the judgment in the writ petition the undertaking was required to be given by the appellant and his brother Jai Krishan Goswami and no undertaking having been given by the the latter, the undertaking given by the appellant alone could not be enforced. The order of the learned Single Judge does not give description of the property in respect of which it is required to be enforced.;