R. A. Misra, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, has been moved by Sri Ladlay Mohan Mathur with the prayer that respondent Sri B. S. Bhatnagar be punished for not complying with the undertaking in Clause 4 of the compromise entered into between the parties in Second Appeal No. 237 of 1976.
(2.) THE respondent Sri Bhatnagar was tenant of a portion of premises no. 455, Attarsuiya, Allahabad of which the petitioner is the landlord. A suit for ejectment was filed against the respondent by the landlord for the ejectment and recovery of rent. It was contested by the tenant and was decreed by the trial court on 12th January, 1973. THE tenant went in appeal and the appeal was also dismissed. THE tenant approached this Court in II Appeal No. 237 of 1976. It is alleged that here the parties filed a compromise (Annexure-1). Annexure-1 is the copy of the affidavit which purports to have been sworn by Sri B. S. Bhatnagar and Ladlay Mohan Mathur. Paragraph 4 of this affidavit says that the defendant-appellant undertakes to vacate the premises in dispute after three years and shall handover vacant and peaceful possession to the plaintiff-respondent on or before 22th of May, 1984. It so appears that the Court decided the Second Appeal in terms of the compromise but the copy of the order of the Court has not been filed in this petition. We may, however, proceed with the assumption that an order has been passed decreeing or deciding the appeal in terms of the compromise filed by the parties So admittedly a consent decree has been passed and by means of this petition it is prayed that the respondent be punished for disobeying an undertaking between the parties which was part of the compromise decree. The decree holder can very well put the decree into execution and proceed to take possession over the disputed premises on the face of the consent decree. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Clause 4 in the compromise arrived at by the parties by means of joint affidavit amounts to an undertaking to the Court and as such willful disobedience of the same amounts to civil contempt. It is manifest that any person before a Court can give an undertaking in two ways (I) that he files an application or an affidavit clearly setting out the undertaking given by him to the Court (2) by a clear and express oral undertaking given by contemner or incorporated by the court in its order. There is a clear cut distinction between the compromise arrived at between the parties or consent order passed by the Court at the instance of the parties and a clear and categorical undertaking given by any of the parties to the court. In the former, if there is violation of the compromise or the order, no question of contempt of court arises, but the party has a right to enforce the order of the compromise by either executing the order or getting an injunction from the court. This view finds support from the observations made in Babu Ram Gupta v. Sudhir Bhasin, AIR 1979 SC 1528.
(3.) IN this view of the matter non-compliance of the clause or clauses of the compromise or the consent decree as alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not amount to civil contempt. The petition for initiating civil contempt proceedings is consequently rejected. Application rejected.;