( 1 ). By virtue of the present petition under the contempt of Courts Act, this Court is called upon to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 2 (b) of the contempt of Courts Act against the contemner/respondent for willful disobedience of the orders of the Court dated 10/02/2000 and 15/02/2000 in Suit no. 2528/98.

( 2 ). A short background of the facts giving rise to the present petition is that the petitioner and the respondent/contemner had entered into a compromise and on the joint application moved under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, compromise was recorded in the suit and vide orders dated 15/02/2000 suit was decreed in terms thereof. As per the terms of the compromise, respondent had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 36,30,200. 00 by way of cheques in thirty three equal monthly instalments of Rs. 1,10,000. 00 each. This amount was payable w. e. f. 10/03/2000. The first two cheques of Rs. 1,10,000. 00 each, when presented to the bank, were dishonoured on 11/04/2000 on the ground of insufficiency of funds. The respondent/ contemner after entering into compromise and having made a statement before the Court to abide by the terms thereof, failed to comply with the consent decree passed by the Court. The petitioner instead of taking out execution, filed the present contempt petition. In order to initiate the contempt proceedings, prima facie case for contempt has to be made out. Though the respondent had appeared in these proceedings through counsel, but no show causa notice for contempt was issued against him.

( 3 ). Contempt is alleged to have been committed by the respondent for non-compliance of the orders dated 10th february, 2000 and 15/02/2000 passed in the Suit. The parties moved a joint application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC which came up for hearing on 10/02/2000. The statement of the respondent, recorded on the said application, is reproduced as under :

"i have read the application under Order 23 rule 3. It has been prepared by my counsel under my instructions and I have signed the same. I agree to abide by the terms and contents of the same. "

( 4 ). On the basis of the statement made by the respondent/contemner, decree in terms of the compromise was passed on 15/02/2000. The following consent order was passed:

"ta. NO. 1554/2000 and S. No. 2528/98 this is a joint application on behalf of both the parties under Order XXIII Rule 3 cpc praying for decreeing the suit in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. This application along with affidavits is signed by both the parties as well as by both the counsel for the parties. Accordingly, the application is allowed. Suit is decreed in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties in this compromise application. The application to form part of the decree. Decree be drawn up accordingly. Parties are left to bear their respective costs. Suit and OA stand disposed of. "

( 5 ). One of the essential ingredients for civil contempt is "wilful disobedience" and not any other disobedience due to various reasons, such as delay due to unavoidable circumstances or inadvertence. That it was "wilful", has to be proved. "willful" means clear intention to flout. Likewise breach of an undertaking has to be proved, to be wilful. If wilfulness is not made out, the Court will refuse to exercise its contempt jurisdiction to punish the alleged contemner. In the present case, parties had compromised the dispute and the terms were incorporated in the compromise petition on the basis of which consent decree dated 15/02/2000 was passed. Neither the consent decree nor the statement dated 10/02/2000 was an undertaking to the Court. The Supreme Court in 1980 (3) SCC 47, Babu Ram Gupta Vs. Sudhir Bhasin and anr. , while dealing with the question as to whether a consent order on the agreement of the parties and by which a Receiver was appointed, included an undertaking given by the contemner to carry out the directions contained tn the