The deliberate and wilful breach of undertakings given to the Court constitutes civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, and such actions can obstruct the administration of justice and delay legal proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Suresh Kumar Kait, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant under the provisions of Section 19 of The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the Judgments and orders dated 02.03.2020 and 31.01.2023 respectively, whereby he has been held guilty of contempt in CONT. CAS.(C) 661/2019 and sentenced to 3 months' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/-.

2. The factual background of this case, as noted in the impugned order dated 02.03.2020, is as under:

"2. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner alleges CS(OS) No.1311/2001 titled 'Scindia Potteries & Services Pvt. Ltd vs. Dr. J.K. Jain & Anr.' was filed for mandatory injunction, permanent injunction, recovery of use, occupation, physical and vacant possession and recovery of mesne profits against respondent in June 2001.

3.The learned Trial Court on 17.07.2017 decreed the said suit in favour of petitioner for possession, mesne profits, injunctions restraining the respondent from carrying out illegal activities and for raising further construction and mandatory injunction directing the respondent to demolish the illegal constructions/structure etc.

4. The respondent preferred an appeal being RFA No.857/2017 before this Court titled Dr.J. K. Jain and another vs Scindia Potteries & Services Pvt Limited challenging the judgment and decree dated 17.07.2017 and on 11.10.2017 this Court passed the following order:

"13. The senior counsel for the appellants states that the appellants will place a proposal before this Court of the amount which the appellants can deposit and the unencumbered security which the appellants can furnish for the remaining decretal amount.

14. I may add that the appellants, during the pendency of this appeal shall remain liable for future mesne profits."

5. Thus, conditional stay was granted on the execution of the decree by this Court on 23.11.2017 and the respondent were to deposit 50% of the decreetal amount with up-to-date interest with the Registry of the Court within eight weeks and subject to the further condition of the respondent's depositing the monthly user and occupation charges at the rate of Rs.7.5 lacs per month till the final disposal of the appeal. Such time period expired on 18.01.2018 and the respondent failed to deposit the money.

6. On 01.02.2018, when the petitioner filed the Execution Application No.80/2018 before learned Trial Court, the respondent filed CM No.4177/2018 under Section 151 CPC praying for pardon for non- compliance of the order dated 23.11.2017 and to grant one month time to deposit the said amount.

7. On 05.02.2018, this Court inter alia passed the following order:

"The learned counsel for the appellant states that by the 10th day of each Gregorian calendar month an amount of Rs.7.5 lacs shall be deposited into respondent/ Decree Holder's bank account: Punjab National Bank Account No.0151002100010748 [IFSC Code PUNB0015100] in the name of Scindia Potteries & Services Pvt. Ltd., Punjab National Bank, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi-23. Any infraction in the payment of the said amount shall automatically result in payment of cost of Rs.15,000/- to the respondent, which amount(s) too shall be deposited into the aforesaid bank account within two weeks thereafter.

The arrears of Rs.7.5 lacs, payable from 17th July, 2017, shall be paid into the said bank account within five weeks from today."

8. Unfortunately, Mr.J.K. Jain expired on 05.03.2018 and the application bearing CM No.4177/2018 was disposed of on 18.07.2018 wherein this Court noted:

"23. The counsel for the legal heirs of appellant/defendant no.1 states that the legal heirs could not deposit without coming on record.

24. The legal heirs of the appellant/ defendant no.1 cannot on the one hand continue in possession and on the other hand wriggle out from the liabilities of the deceased appellant/ defendant no.1.

25. The counsel for the legal heirs of appellant/defendant no.1 states that Mr. Ankur Jain, son of the deceased appellant/defendant no.1, is pers