SAMBHU CHARAN NUNDY Vs. GOPI MOHAN BHATTACHARJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the deft's. appln. for committing the pltfs. Sambhu Charan Nundy & Nilmoni Nundy for contempt & for varying and discharging the undertakings given by the deft, appct. under the consent decree. Two questions have been argued before me: one relates to the pillars according to the sanctioned plan of the Corpn. & the other relates to a window in the south-eastern room which is the alternative accommodation given under the consent decree to the deft.

(2.) The consent decree is dated the 23-11-1930. The terms of the consent decree are set out in annexure B to the petition. There are respective undertakings of the pltfs. & the deft, in the various clauses of the terms of settlement; for instance, Clause 2 of the terms of settlement contains undertakings given both by the pltf. as well as by the deft. Similarly, Clause 5 (wrongly numbered as 5 in the terms of settlement) embodies the undertaking by the deft.

(3.) With regard to the first question about pillars, it is admitted that the pltfs. have not built them according to the sanctioned plan attached to the decree & have thus failed to carry out the terms of the consent decree. The contention is therefore established.