JAGJIT SINGH KANG Vs. SHAKUNTLA VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned counsel for the appellant argued that the statement given by the counsel to the Court on 31.10. 1986 amounts to only a consent for passing a decree and the decree may be executed and, therefore, he had not committed any contempt. It is merely a consent or compromise signed by both the parties and a decree is made on its basis. We have considered this argument. However, we find that the appellant has stated in the Court that he undertakes to abide by the compromise and this is recorded. Time was granted to him for vacating the demised premises subject to his voluntarily vacating of it and also subject to the payment of rent regularly. This undertaking given to the Court, on the basis of which undertaking the possession was allowed to be continued, could not be by-passed by the appellant simply by saying that it is an executable decree. We are of the view that there is a breach of undertaking given to the Court, which amounted to contempt of Court. We are also unable to interfere with the fine imposed or the imprisonment ordered in default of payment of the fine. However, since the order was stayed and one month's time given for depositing of fine is already over, the time has to be extended. Accordingly, time for payment of the fine of Rs. 1000/- is extended by the period of two months from this date. The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.