Wilful disobedience of a judgment, decree, direction, order, writ, or other process of a court, or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court, constitutes civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Nagendra Rai, J.

1. This appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the judgment and order of punishment passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by which he has punished the appellant Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 and in the default, to undergo simple imprisonment for the two weeks. He has also punished appellant No. 4 under the said section and ordered him to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default to go simple imprisonment for one week.

2. The Respondent Shiv Shankar Mishra filed a Title Suit No. 136 of 1986 before the Munsif, Begusarai on 3-12-1981 for declaration that he is entitled to have his seniority from 1-5-1963, the date of his joining as time-keeper on permanent basis and for his pay and allowances on the basis of seniority. He further prayed that the defendants be directed through mandatory injunction to place the petitioner on the seniority list on the basis of bis joining as time-keeper from 1-5-1963.

3. The said suit was decreed on 24th March, 1984. The operative portion of the judgment runs as follows :

"The plaintiff is held entitled to have his seniority from 1-5-1963 the date of his joining as time-keeper on permanent basis and accordingly he is further held entitled to get consequential benefits according to him on the basis of his seniority on and from 1-5-1963 in the matter of his promotion and emoluments. The defendants are directed by order of mandatory injunction to peace plaintiff on seniority list as held above and further directed to grant him all consequential reliefs in the matter of promotions and emoluments."

4. The Corporation and its officers who challenged the aforesaid judgment and decree in appeal before the District Judge which was upheld by him on 4-4-1995. Thereafter, the Corporation filed a Second Appeal No. 193 of 1985 in this Court which was allowed on the grouud that the affected persons were not impleaded party in the plaint. The plaintiff challenged the said judgment before the Apex Court. The Apex Court remanded the matter to the High Court to hear the appeal after impleading the necessary party. Thereafter, the appeal was heard and dismissed on 9-10-1990. While dismissing the appeal, this Court directed the Corporation immediately comply with the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Again the matter was taken to the Apex Court by the Corporation as well as the persons who were added as parties in the High Court in pursuance of the directions of the Apex Court by filing two S. L. P. petitions, namely, 4249 of 1991 and 4751 of 1991. Both were dismissed on 21-3-1991.

5. It appears from the record that afer plaintiff-respondent succeeded in the trial Court, he levied an execution case being Execution Case No. 4 of 1984/26 of 1985 in the Executing Court. As the matter was pending before the High Courts, no progress could be made in the Execution case, however, after the dismissal of the matter by the Supreme Court, the plaintiff took steps in the Execution case.

6. It appear further from the record that the applications were filed on behalf of the Corporation on 24-8-1991, 4-5-1991 and 6-5-1991 wherein it was stated that they would comply with the judgment and decree. The learned Executive Court granted time on 4-5-1991 to comply with the order within a month but the Judgment-debtors did not comply with the order. In the meantime the plaintiff respondents came to the Court and filed a Miscellaneous Judicial Case on 9-7-1991 for punishing the appellant Nos. 2 and 3 who were opposite Parties in the said application.

7. In the M. J. C. Case, the learned single judge issued directions from time to time to the appellants. Affidavits were filed on behalf of the Corporation and its officers in the said M. J. C. case sworn by appellant Nirmal Kumar Singh. The learned Judge, having noticed that the false stateme