S.P.GOYAL, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been moved under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for taking proceedings against the respondents for breach of the undertaking given to the court.
(2.) THE petitioners filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents for alienating in any manner the plot measuring 2000Sq. yards comprising of killa No. 15/1, rectangle No. 6, Khewat No. 36, Khatoni, No. 46 as per jamabandi for the year 1971-72 situate at village Haibowal Kalan, tehsil and district Ludhiana which the latter had agreed to sell to the petitioners vide agreement dated May, 8, 1979. The respondents initially contested the suit but therefore made a statement on April, 28, 1982 that he will sell the disputed plot only to the petitioners and get it registered within 15 days. Because of this undertaking the learned counsel for the petitioner made a statement that he did not want o proceed with the suit and the same was accordingly dismissed. As the respondents failed to honour out the undertaking the petitioners moved an application under Order 21, rule 32 Civil Procedure Code, for enforcement of the same. Though the respondents had put in appearance a long back but they kept on getting dates on one excuse or the other and have not so far complied with the undertaking and it is therefore, contended that the respondents are intentionally and willfully not complying with the undertaking and are, therefore, guilty of the contempt of court.
(3.) AS respondent No. 2 was only a firm, notice was issued to respondent No. 1 alone who filed his reply on January 17, 1983 stating therein that he has been always prepared to execute the sale deed and the delay has been caused because the copy of the jamabandi had to be secured and time taken from the Tehsildar due to the Ceiling Act. On March 21, 1983, after a lapse of two months when the respondent failed to execute the deed, his learned counsel was directed to produce him in the court on the date of next hearing, i.e. April 11, 1983. However, the respondent failed to attend on the said date and his counsel showed inability to produced him. The case was consequently heard on merits.;