LAJUKLATA Vs. NRISHINGHA PROSAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The opposite party to this Rule Nrishingha Prosad Roy stands charged with contempt of this Court.

(2.) He was the petitioner in Rule No. 1247 of 1951 which he took out against an order for possession made against him and which was disposed of on the 26th July, 1951. We found no reason to interfere with the order of the Small Cause Court Judge, but as an earnest prayer was made to us to allow the petitioner to remain on the premises till some further time in order that he might arrange for some suitable accommodation we acceded to his prayer and gave him time till the 31st of October 1951 on his giving an undertaking to us that he would vacate the premises with effect from the 1st of November. It will be seen that more than three months' time was given to the opposite party. He was present in Court and gave the undertaking not only personally but also through his advocate Mr. Shyarna Charan Mitter who was then representing him.

(3.) The present Rule which directs the opposite party to show cause why he should not be dealt with for contempt of this Court was issued by another Bench on a petition made by the landlord of the premises concerned, who was the opposite party in the previous Rule. The present Rule has been directed to be heard by us inasmuch as it was to this Bench that the undertaking was given.