( 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 where the usual undertaking is not given ?the learned Judge has now made his report on the points referred to him and the relevant portion thereof reads as under:-POINT. No. 1:- The words usual undertaking mean an undertaking to be given by the party to whom the goods etc. found at the inventory are entrusted to the effect that he would produce the said goods etc. entrusted to him in Court on demand. POINT No. 2:- It is not the practice of this Court to direct the Commissioner appointed to make an inventory to seal the premises in all matters where the usual under taking is not given. Such an undertaking is not ordered in all matters in this case such an order was made bearing in mind the peculiar circumstances of the case the facts mentioned in the report of the Commissioner at Exh. C/6 and the fact that defendant No. 1 to whom the factory belonged could not be traced and the custody of the goods was to be granted to his brother who was not a party to the suit and not subject to the Courts jurisdiction if he dealt with the property in violation of the interim injunction issued by the Court.

( 2 ) IT appears from the report submitted by the learned Judge that the expression usual undertaking means an undertaking to be given by the person who is found to be in possession of the movable property of which inventory is made to produce the property in the Court on being called upon to do so. The practice as the tenor of the report suggests appears to be that the Commissioner after making the inventory takes the movable property so to say in his possession and then entrusts it again to the person in which possession it was found at the time of making the inventory provided such person agrees to give the requisite undertaking and if such undertaking is not given the premises in which the said property was found are sealed up. In other words according to the practice as reported by the learned Judge the Commissioner who is appointed merely to make an inventory assumes the role of a receiver or an attaching officer when the inventory proceedings conclude and takes possession of the movable property and entrusts it again to the person found on the premises and the said property is thenceforth held by such person as a custodian with a distinct understanding that it would be required to be produced in the Court whenever called upon. As the report states this practice is not followed in the City Civil Court in all cases; however in cases such as the one before us namely where the owner of the property is not traceable and property at the time of making the inventory is found in possession of a stranger who may not be bound by an ex parte order of injunction made in the suit against the owner of the property this practice or procedure appears to have been adopted more