D. Murugesan, J.

1. The Contempt Appeal is directed against the order dated 30-12 2002 passed in Contempt Application No. 481 of 2002.

2. A brief resume of the facts leading to the present Contempt Appeal may be stated as follows:

i) The parties are referred to as arrayed in the Contempt Appeal. The respondent filed a suit in C.S. No. 733 of 1997 before this Court and pending the said suit he also filed an application No. 791 of 1997 seeking for an order restraining both the appellants herein, their agents, their men and their servants from interfering with the free access to the terrace described in 'B' Schedule to the plaint. On 8-1-1998, learned single Judge passed the following order:

Learned Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2 given an undertaking that his client will be available in the house in all reasonable hours and the keys to open the grill-door leading to the terrace is always kept by him and in case of any requirement, he would go and open the door for the benefit of the other tenants. It is also stated that in case he leaves the place for any reason, he would see to it that the keys are handed over to the watchman who is there engaged by all the flat owners. The key will be given for attending to the repairs or break-down in the lift or for access to overhead tank and also for adjusting the television antennas.

With this undertaking, the matter is adjourned for hearing after four weeks.

ii) By subsequent Order dated 9-11-1998, the learned Judge modified the above order and the said order reads as follows:

As per the earlier order passed on 8-1-1998, an arrangement has come into effect and both sides agree that the matter is being dealt with smoothly without any complication. The respondents 1 and 2 have undertaken to hand over the keys to the watchman whenever they are not available and this is being done now. The learned Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 now state that they have been handing over the keys to the Secretary of the Flat Owners' Association of which the applicant is a member and this arrangement may be continued. Both sides agree and therefore, for till the disposal of the suit, this arrangement will continue and this application is closed.

iii) When the respondent complained to the Court as to the breach of undertaking given by the Appellants, this Court, on 26-4-2000, had ordered as follows:

when the matter is brought before this Court as "Being mentioned", it is represented by the counsel for the plaintiff/applicant that the earlier order passed by this Court permitting the Plaintiff/Applicant to use the terrace, has not been complied with by Defendants/Respondents. Now, the counsel appearing for the Respondents 1 and 2 would undertake that he would give proper advice to the party to comply with the order referred to above.

Post the matter after vacation.

iv) The respondent approached this Court by way of Contempt Application No. 481 of 2002 on the ground that in spite of the undertakings, the appellants did not allow the access to the respondent to the terrace for the purpose of effecting repairs. By order dated 30-10-2002, learned Judge after holding that the appellants herein did not honour the undertaking given before this Court also found that there had been a breach of undertaking. The learned Judge had also noted the submission made on behalf of the appellants that "there will have no objection if the respondent wanted to effect repairs at his own cost and no right should be deemed to be conferred on him, merely because he is permitted to effect the repairs" and let the appellants with warning without imposing any other punishment.

3. Aggrieved by the Order of warning, the present contempt appeal is filed. Mr. Sriram Panchu, learned Senior Counsel would submit that there had been no breach of undertaking as could be seen from the various communications exchanged between the appellants and the respondents. He would submit that initially by Order dated 8-1-1998, this Court had recorded the un