HARISH TANDON,J. - (1.) The present contempt application is filed alleging that despite clear and express assurance/proposal given to the Court to vacate the premises on or before the end of December, 2015, the alleged contemnor did not vacate the premises and still continuing to enjoy and use the same. The first appeal against the decree is pending and no order of stay appears to be subsisting therein.
(2.) The alleged contemnor no. 7 has approached the executing Court with an application under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure for declaration that the decree is a nullity having passed against one of the defendants who was dead by that time. Since this Court has extended the time for personal appearance of the contemnor no. 7, the contemnor no. 13 was directed to proceed with the contempt application. Since each of the alleged contemnor has to defend themselves individually and have filed the separate affidavit, this Court does not find any impediment in proceeding with the contempt application so far as the alleged contemnor no. 13 is concerned.
(3.) A plea has been taken by the said contemnor that mere non-filing of the undertaking despite the proposal/assurance having given to the Court does not amount to contemptuous act so as to bring the contemnor within the ambit of contempt of Courts Act.;