(1.) Since common question of law is involved in these cases, we propose to deal with them simultaneously. However, we set out the facts contained in Contempt Appeal (Civil) No. 5 of 1993, (Kundan Ram v. Darshan) being the principal case in which the questions for determination have been framed.
(2.) The appellant was locked in civil litigation with the respondent. Before the Sub-Judge I-Class (I), Karsog, undertaking was given whereby the respondent undertook not to obstruct the flow of water into the fields of the appellant and in case he failed to abide by the undertaking, he would render himself liable for contempt of Court: The undertaking was accepted by the Court and the suit of the appellant was dismissed as withdrawn. The respondent did not abide by the undertaking. He obstructed the flow of water into the land of the appellant resulting in loss to him. The undertaking given by the respondent was brought to his notice but no attention was paid to it. Rather, it was stated by the respondent that he did not bother about the contempt proceedings that may be initiated against him.
(3.) Accordingly, in the aforesaid background, contempt petition was preferred by the appellant under Section 2(B) read with Section 12 of .the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which was ultimately dismissed by the Chief Justice by order dated July 16, 1993 (Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 47 of 1993). This order is intended to be assailed by way of this appeal on number of grounds with which we are not presently concerned. Notice of' this appeal .was given to the opposite side. Objection as to the maintainability, of this appeal has been taken on the ground that since the respondent has not been punished and notice discharged, no appeal is maintainable. Similar question arises in other cases connected with this appeal. On December 16, 1993, we requested the learned Advocate General and other prominent lawyers of this Court to assist us in examining this question. We also framed the following circumstances :