The court confirms that violators of a consent decree are guilty of contempt, emphasizing the binding nature of judicial undertakings.

JUDGMENT

[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)--This is an appeal preferred under Section 19(1)(a) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 [in short, `Contempt of Courts Act'] against the judgment and order dated 26.04.2022 passed by the Learned Single Judge in Cont. Case (C) No.640/2018. The contempt case arises out of a consent decree dated 21.09.2012 passed by this Court in CS(OS) 2077/2006, titled Shri Badri Prakash Soni & Another vs. Shri Munish Soni & Others.

2. The relevant paragraphs of the consent judgment and decree dated 21.09.2012, which have been extracted by the Learned Single Judge in paragraph 6 of his judgment dated 26.04.2022, read as follows:

"6. The said application was disposed of vide Order dated 21.09.2012 and the suit, thereafter, was decreed on the terms of the compromise and the parties were directed to remain bound by the terms and conditions of the settlement. The relevant portion of the said Order dated 21.09.2012 reads asunder:

"The present joint application has been filed by the parties stating inter alia that during the pendency of the present proceedings, they have arrived at an out of court settlement. The terms and conditions of the settlement arrived at between the parties have been reduced into writing and set out in para 8 of the application.

Counsels for the parties state that the aforesaid settlement has been arrived at between the parties of their own free will and volition and without any undue influence or coercion from any quarters.

Counsel for the defendants confirms that a sum of 1 crore, agreed to be paid by the plaintiffs to the defendants, has already been received by his clients and nothing further is due or payable to them by the plaintiffs. He further concedes that the defendants are not left with any right, title or interest in the properties mentioned in sub para (k) of para 8 of the application and that they undertake to vacate the ground floor of the residential premises No.B-2/103, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110029 on or before 30.09.2017 and hand over vacant peaceful possession thereof to the plaintiffs.

The Court has perused the application. The same has been signed by the plaintiffs and the defendants as also their respective counsels. The application is duly supported by the affidavits of all the parties, who are also present in Court, and they confirm having arrived at the aforesaid settlement. They undertake to remain bound by the terms and conditions thereof. The application is supported by a receipt dated 17.09.2012 executed by the defendants No.1 to 3 confirming having received a sum of1 crore from the plaintiffs as per the terms of compromise.

In view of the aforesaid position, the compromise application is allowed and disposed of.

The suit is decreed in terms of the compromise application. The parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the settlement.

The suit is disposed of while leaving the parties to bear their own costs."

2.1. A perusal of the aforementioned extract would show that the appellants were required to vacate the subject property i.e., the ground floor of the residential premises defined as B-2/103, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110029, on or before 30.09.2017.

2.2. The consent decree was predicated on the application filed on behalf of the parties under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [in short, `CPC'].

2.3. A perusal of the extract of the judgment and decree dated 21.09.2012 also shows that the parties had undertaken to remain bound by the terms and conditions contained in the application i.