A bona fide mistake or misunderstanding of a court order does not constitute wilful disobedience for the purpose of civil contempt, and the court has discretion to consider the circumstances and decide whether prosecution for filing a false affidavit is expedient in the interest of justice.

SRINIVASAN, J.

1. These three applications arise out of a proceedings, in which we passed an order on 10.4.1995 in O.S.A. No. 74 of 1995, which, in turn, was an appeal against an interlocutory order made during the pendency of a suit pending on the original side of this Court.

2. It is not necessary for us to set out in detail the history of the case. Suffice it to point out that Application No. 166 of 1996 is one for punishing the respondent for wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order of this Court in O.S.A. No. 74 of 1995. The content of the charge is that the direction given by us to the respondent in our judgment dated 10.4.1995 reported in 1995-2-L.W. 486 to make it clear by appropriate words whenever it makes use of the words ‘First Computers’ the purpose of its coaching classes in all the advertisement, pamphlets, etc. that it has nothing to do with the business conducted by the applicant herein.

3. We have gone through the records and heard arguments in detail. We are of the opinion that the disobedience on the part on the respondent is not wilful. Unless there is a wilful disobedience of the order of this Court, there cannot be any question of punishing the respondent for contempt. What is meant by the expression ‘wilful’ is set out in Nat. Assistance Board. v. Prisk (1954 (I) ALL. E.R. 400). Lord Goddard. C.J. said that ‘wilful’ means in the summary Jurisdiction (Separation and Maintenance) Acts, 1895 to 1949, ‘deliberate’, that is to say, deliberately refusing to pay, with no excuse.

4. Thus to make out a case of civil contempt, it is necessary to prove that the disobedience on the part of the respondent is deliberate and without any excuse. In this case, after going through the explanation given by the respondent, we are of the opinion that the disobedience on the part of the of the respondent is not wilful. No doubt, the respondent is highly educated and is expected to know what exactly is being done and what exactly was meant by the order of this Court. But, that by itself would not make the act of the respondent ‘wilful’.

5. In Contempt Application No. 163 of 1996, the content of the charge is that the respondent is guilty of criminal contempt, having filed a false affidavit dated 4.1.1996 in this Court in C.M.P. Nos. 836 and 839 of 1996 in O.S.A. No. 74 of 1995. In the said petition, the prayers made by the respondent were for issue of a clarification of our earlier order dated 10.4.1995, referred to above and for the grant of injunction restraining the applicant herein from continuing to issue the circular complained of or issue any advertisements, notices, etc. In the affidavit filed in support of the said petition, the respondent had stated in paragraphs 6 and 8, as follows:

6. In accordance with the directions issued by this Honble Court in O.S.A. No. 74 of 1995, the petitioner has been issuing newspaper advertisements which contain the wording ‘we have no connection with a computer trading concern run by Mr. A. Guruprasad at Madras’. The petitioner has used indentical wording in the advertisements which ‘appear in television channels and cable T.V. The petitioner has not used the said wording in its informational brochures relating to the different courses conducted by the petitioner, as such informational brochures are not in the nature of advertisement material. The brochures are informative of the various courses providing details of the contents of the courses. The informational brochures are not distributed to the public at large as a means of advertisement, but are given only to the students who come for enquiry to the training centre of the petitioner and its franchisees, to enable the students to study the course content of each course and to select the specific course which suits his/her intended avocation., 8. Although the petitioner has adhered to the condition imposed by this Honble Court in newspaper advertisements since April, 1995, in the last week of December, 1995 after a