J. P. Singh, J. - (1.) -
(2.) THIS Civil Contempt Petition has been filed by Hari Shanker Srivastava against Smt. Savitri Devi and 5 other respondents to punish them under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Act No. 70 of 1971) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for being In Contempt for violating the 'under-taking' given by them to the court in persuance of this court's order dated 8-12-1982 passed in Civil Revision No. 647 of 1983 (Smt. Savitri Devi and others defendants-applicants-revisionists versus Hari Shanker Srivastava plaintiff-opposite party). It would be worthwhile to quote the said order dated 8-12-1982 to appreciate the things " Heard learned counsel. I see no error of law or procedure to call for an interference with the impugned order. Rejected. Learned counsel prayed for some time for the applicants to vacate the accommodation in dispute. Three months time has already been granted by the court below. However, in the interest of justice two months' time is granted provided the applicants give an under-taking in writing in the court below within two weeks that they would deliver vacant possession to respondent no. 1 immediately on the expiry of two months from today and also deposit an amount equivalent to two months rent within 15 days from today. In case this is not complied with the decree of the court can be put in execution on the expiry of 15 days from today. " It is obvious that this was a conditional order in the sense that if the condition imposed by this court by the above order would be fulfilled by Smt. Savitri Devi and others revisionists (present respondents in the present contempt petition) then they would have the benefit of remaining in the accommodation in dispute for a period of two months calculated from 8-12-1982. In the nature of things it was upon the present respondents to fulfil that condition and obtain benefit of the order or not to fulfil that condition and forge the benefit of the order.
(3.) ACCORDING to the present petitioner Hari Shanker Srivastava the present respondents did chose to comply with the condition imposed and submitted the required 'undertaking' in the court of IVth Additional District Judge, Allahabad in Original Suit No. 32 of 1981. That 'undertaking' is Annexure-6 to the present Contempt Petition and is in the form of an application the contents of which run as follows - " The humble petition on behalf of the J.D's is as follows- 1. That the Hon'ble Court had granted time upto 17-12-1982 to J.D's to vacate the Home. 2. That the J.D's filed revision in the High Court against the decree passed by the Hon'ble Court. The Revision has been dismissed but the J.D's have been allowed time till 8-2-1983 to vacate the House provided two months rent alongwith an Undertaking to vacate by 8-2-1983 is given by the J.D's. The J.D's hereby undertake to vacate the premises by 8-2-1983. 3. That the J.D's are filing the certified copy of the order dated 8-12-82 passed by the High Court so that no eviction order is passed as ordered by the Hon'ble High Court. PRAYER It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to keep the order of the Hon'ble High Court on record so that action is not taken against the said order. Sd. Mool Chandra Mehrotra Advocate Dt. 23-12-82 Counsel for the J.D's. " The petitioner's contention is that by virtue of the said 'undertaking' to the court respondents were to vacate the accommodation in question by 8-2-1983. Since they have not fulfilled that 'undertaking' and have not vacated the said accommodation so they are in contempt of court.;