N.N. Mithal, J. - (1.) This is a petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, against the opposite party, who was tenant in the disputed property, on behalf of the applicant.
(2.) A suit for ejectment was filed and decreed on 20-3-84 and a revision against that order was dismissed by the High Court on 15-1-1986. At the time of dismissal of the revision a prayer was made for time to vacate the premises. The Court, therefore, granted six months time to enable him to vacate the premises. Since the revisionist was not present in the court in person and his Counsel was not in a position to give an undertaking on behalf of the applicant, it was directed that the decree for ejectment shall not be executed for a period of six months on conditions : "The revisionist gives an undertaking in the Court below within a period of one month from today that he will hand over vacant possession to the landlord peacefully and put him into possession over the property in question immediately on the expiry of six months granted by this court. Within a period of one month he will also deposit the entire amount that will be due for this period calculated at the rate awarded by the court below and shall also clear off the arrears and costs etc., in terms of the decree under revision. Should the revisionist fail either to give the undertaking to the satisfaction of the court below or to deposit the amount as directed above, this part of the order will cease automatically and the opposite parry will be free to execute the decree at once."
(3.) Pursuant to this order, the opposite party gave an undertaking in the court below on 13-2-1986 which was supported by an affidavit. It is alleged that the opposite party did not either deposit the entire amount due from him nor handed over the vacant possession of the premises to the applicant on the expiry of the period of six months granted to the opposite party for vacating the premises. It is alleged that on 18th of July, 1986 the opposite party filed an objection in the executing court on the plea that one Ahmad Jan was the owner of the same and the petitioner was not entitled to execute the decree against him. It was further, alleged that the decree had been obtained by playing fraud upon him.;