BALDEV DAS Vs. ALLABUX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) The suit for eviction of tenant (contemner) was filed which was decreed by the Trial Court on 3.5.2001. The appeal against the decree of Trial Court for eviction of the contemner was dismissed by the Appellate Court on 20.11.2001. Thereafter, second appeal being S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 62/2002 was dismissed by this Court on 10.7.2002. While dismissing the appeal, this Court ordered that the contemner/ defendant is given time to vacate the suit premises by or before 30.4.2003 on giving undertaking with usual conditions before the Trial Court within a period of three weeks for the date of order of this Court.

(3.) Admittedly, the undertaking was submitted by the contemner before the Trial Court, copy of which is placed on record as Annexure 2. Despite this undertaking, the possession was not delivered by the contemner and according to learned Counsel for the petitioner, by that, the contemner has committed contempt of this Court's order by violating the conditions of undertaking, under the provisions of Sec. 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act. It is also submitted that there was no interim order from any Court till the date expired for vacating the suit premises. According to the petitioner, thereafter, a petition was filed by the brothers of the contemner under Order 21 Rule 97, C.P.C, wherein also, the contemner was not specifically directed not to hand over the possession of the suit premises. It is also submitted that the contemner did not submit reply to the petition under Order 21 Rule 97, C.P.C, filed by his own brothers resisting the delivery of possession and did not disclose the complete facts before the Court under which he contested the suit and took the benefit of the order of this Court dated 10.7.2003, therefore, the conduct of the contemner speaks volumes against him, therefore, he was liable to be punished, therefore, the petitioner submitted this contempt petition.