( 1 ) :- Ordinarily we would have concluded our judgment having disposed of the contempt application but this case has helped to bring to our notice a practice or procedure which appears to have developed in the City Civil Court the legality of which in our opinion is open to serious doubt. By the order dated December 3 1966 passed below the application of the commissioner who was appointed by the Court to make inventory of the goods and machinery lying in the factory of the first respondent the commissioner was directed inter alia to take usual undertaking and further directed to seal the factory in the event of such usual under taking being not given by the person present at the time of making the inventory. When this order came to our notice we were unable to appreciate the significance of the expression usual undertaking and we had therefore directed the learned Judge in the City Civil Court who had passed the order to make a report to us focusing his attention on the following points:- (I) as to what is the meaning of the words usual undertaking ? (ii) as to whether it is a practice to direct the commissioner appointed to make inventory to seal the premises wher