Willful non-compliance with a Court order constitutes civil contempt, requiring both knowledge of the order and deliberate disobedience, as reaffirmed in the Court’s findings.

JUDGMENT :

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. The present contempt petition has been filed alleging deliberate and willful disobedience of the order dated 19.01.2023 passed by this Court in CR-8775-2014, whereby the respondents were directed to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the property in question to the petitioner/landlord on or before 30.04.2023.

2. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the vacant possession of the property has now been handed over to the petitioner on 05.09.2025.

3. It is not in dispute that order dated 19.01.2023 has attained finality. The respondent had furnished a categorical undertaking before this Court agreeing to vacate the premises by the stipulated date, on the strength of which the CR No. 8775 of 2014 filed by respondent-tenant titled as Nafe Singh through his LRs. Ramesh Tanwar & Ors. Vs. Kamlesh Rani & Anr. was disposed of. Compliance is made only on 05.09.2025, after an inordinate delay of nearly two years beyond the period fixed by this Court.

4. For attracting civil contempt, the following ingredients are required to be satisfied: (i) existence of a lawful and binding order of the Court; (ii) knowledge of such order by the alleged contemnor and (iii) willful and deliberate disobedience thereof. In the present case, all three requirements stand satisfied:

• There is a clear and unequivocal order dated 19.01.2023 directing delivery of vacant possession by 30.04.2023.

• The order is founded upon an express undertaking given by the respondent-tenant in Court. Hence, knowledge is implicit and admitted.

• Despite such undertaking, the respondent chose not to vacate the premises within the stipulated period and continued in occupation until 05.09.2025.

5. The respondent-tenant has not established any supervening circumstances which rendered compliance within time impossible. Mere eventual compliance after prolonged delay, without justification, does not efface the contumacious conduct. On the contrary, the conduct of the respondent-tenant reveals a calculated decision to retain possession in defiance of the Court’s mandate and his own solemn assurance to the Court.

6. The eventual handing over of possession does not purge the contempt when compliance comes only after years of disregard and only when compelled through contempt petition. The petitioner had to run from pillar to post, compelled to initiate the present proceedings merely to enforce what was already solemnly undertaken. Such conduct displays casualness toward the majesty of law and undermines faith in judicial orders.

7. This Court cannot remain a silent spectator to such blatant disregard of its authority. The sequence of events shocks the conscience of this Court and warrants imposition of exemplary costs so as to send a strong message that undertakings given to the Court are to be honoured strictly and within time.

8. This Court is conscious of the settled legal position that for initiating contempt proceedings, it must be clearly established that there has been a violation of a judgment, order or direction of the Court, and such violation must be willful. Mere non-compliance, without the element of intention, does not automatically amount to contempt. Reliance in this regard may be placed on Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj , (2014) 16 SCC 204 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering the implications of exercising contempt jurisdiction, held that such power must be invoked with caution and not on the basis of mere probabilities. The relevant extract is reproduced as under:

“12. Thus, in order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of the order is "wilful". The word "wilful" introduces a mental e