Back
1988 Supreme(P&H) 620
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
V.Ramaswami and G.R.Majithia JJ.
Anant Ram
Versus
Murari Lal
C.A. (C) No. 15 of 1988,
Decided On : NOVEMBER 22, 1988
To constitute civil contempt, there has to be wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court.
Headnote:
CONTEMPT OF COURT - CIVIL CONTEMPT - WILFUL DISOBEDIENCE TO COURT ORDER - UNDERTAKING GIVEN TO COURT - INTERPRETATION - SECTION 2(B) OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants and the respondent entered into a compromise before the Rent Controller, agreeing to vacate and reconstruct a shop, respectively. The Rent Controller passed an order based on the compromise, which the parties failed to adhere to. The respondent filed a contempt petition against the appellants for breach of undertaking.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that no express undertaking was given by the appellants to the court and none was recorded in the order of the Rent Controller. The compromise was taken to be an undertaking given to the court by the Rent Controller which did not flow from the statement made by the parties. The appellants had not committed any breach of undertaking given to the court.
Issues: Whether the appellants had given an undertaking to the court and whether they had committed a breach of that undertaking.
Ratio Decidendi: An undertaking given to a court can be either by way of an affidavit or an application clearly setting out the undertaking, or by a clear and express oral undertaking given by the party and incorporated by the court in its order. In the instant case, no such undertaking was given to the court either by way of an affidavit or on a petition filed in court by the parties to the lis. Breach of even and oral undertaking given to the court will constitute a contempt, if it is incorporated in the order of the court. In the present case, the Rent Controller from the statements of the parties drew an inference that there was an undertaking which was given to the court, but, in fact. no such undertaking was given.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge. The court clarified that the order of the Rent Controller was executable and the respondent could take out execution of the order.
G.R.Majithia, J.
1. The stay application (Civil Misc. No. 4401-CII of 1988) in C.A. (C) No. 15 of 1988 came up for hearing before us today. With the consent of the parties we decided to dispose of the main appeal itself.
2. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated May 31, 1986.
3. A brief resume of the important facts, is necessary in order to appreciate the points of law that arise in the appeal.
4. On August 21, 1987, the respondent made the following statement before the Rent Controller and its correct English translation is as under :
"Statement of Murari Lal Son of Kanwar Bhan, aged 47 years, Tailor Master, r/o Thanesar on oath and counsel Shri R.K. Sachdeva without oath.
I am ready to vacate the nearest shop for the time being. The respondent will reconstruct the shop within one month from the date of delivery of possession and will rent out to me on a monthly rent of Rs. 260/- in addition to house tax. The day I deliver the possession, the respondent will deposit Rs. 10, 000/- by way of security. The day, the respondent delivers possession of the shop, I will return Rs. 10,000/- on the same day. The arrears of rent after deducting the cost of litigation will be paid by me to the respondent by August 31, 1987 against receipt. The, suit be disposed of accordingly and I have got no objection to it .
Sd/- Murari Lal
Sd/- R.K. Sachdeva."
Advocate.
5. On the same day, one of the appellants Shri Anant Ram made a statement before the Rent Controller on oath and his counsel without oath and its correct translation is as follows :-
I have understood the statement of the respondent which is correct. He will reconstruct the shop within one month from the date of taking of possession from him and rent out the same to him on payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 260/- p.m. exclusive of house tax. The respondent will be our tenant. The suit be disposed of accordingly. The parties should bear their own costs.
Sd.- Anant Ram,
Sd/- S.C. Jain,"
Advocate,
6. On the basis of these statements, the Rent Controller passed the following order :-
"Parties have arrived at a compromise. Statements of Murari Lal and Anant Ram, and their counsel have also been recorded in this regard. Respondent has undertaken to vacate the shop in dispute within a month from today, and the petitioners have undertaken to construct the same and they will also pay Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent and again they will rent out this shop to the respondent at the rate of Rs. 260/- per month plus house tax and the petitioners will also be entitled to take back the amount of Rs. 10,000/- which will be paid by them to the respondent after handing over the possession of the shop after reconstructing the same. File be consigned to record-room."
It appears that the parties did not adhere to the compromise made by them before the Rent Controller. The respondent filed a contempt petition in this court resulting in passing of the following orders.
"They are directed to hand over the possession within two months as undertaken by them on or before 1-8-1988, failing which they will be liable for contempt; The petitioner will also deposit the sum of Rs. 10,000/- in the court of Rent Controller, Kurukshetra, before the said date, but the same will not be paid to the respondent till the possession is handed over. To come up on 8.5.1988."
7. The gravamen of the charge against the appellant was that he had committed a serious breach of undertaking given to the court.
8. The learned counsel for the appellants raised an important question before us. He submitted that no express undertaking was given by the appellants to the court and none was recorded in the order of the Rent Controller. The lis was disposed of on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties. The compromise was taken to be an undertaking given to the court by the Rent Controller which did not flow from the statement made by the parties. The appellants had not committed any b
