The opposite party has not complied with the order dated 27-3-1984 passed by the Court.

This petition has been filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 with a prayer to punish the opposite party Sri Virendra Singh for having committed breach of this Courts order dated January 29, 1999 passed in Second Appeal No. 733 of 1983, Co-operative Cane Development Union, Palia Kalan, Lakhimpur Kheri v. Jagmofian Lal Verma.

2. In brief, the facts which are relevant for the present purpose may be narrated as below: The petitioner Jagmohan Lal Verma was in the employment of Cane Co-opera tive Society, Palia Kalan, District Lakhim pur Kheri. His services were terminated by the department in the year 1978. He filed a civil suit but failed to get a favourable decree from the trial Court. However, in appeal he got success and he was demand to have been in the service from the year 1978 by virtue by a decree awarded. The details of the decree are not before this Court but as admitted to the opposite party, the petitioner was treated to be in service continuously entitling him to all the emoluments and allowances admis sible to him as per service rules. The Cane Department filed Second Appeal No. 733 of 1983 in this Court and prayed for, as an interim measure, stay of the operation of the judgment and decree passed in the first appeal. The said second appeal is pending in this Court. By virtue of the order dated 27-3-1984 this Court directed the appel lants to deposit the entire salary payable to the respondent within one month, failing which the stay order granted was to stand automatically vacated. It is alleged by the petitioner that the opposite party did not deposit the decretal sum in this Court in compliance of the order referred to above. He, therefore, moved an application for dismissal of the second appeal. This ap plication was dismissed on 29-1 -1999 with the observation that in case of default, the stay order granted earlier being condition al automatically stood vacated. The petitioner has now filed the application in hand under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act with the allegations that the opposite party has been continuously disobeying the Courts order referred to above. It is under these circumstances that a prayer for awarding punishment to the opposite party has been pressed into Ser vice.

3. Sri Virendra Singh, Special Secretary, Ganna Sahkari Samiti, Palia Kalan, District Lakhimpur Kheri has con tested this petition on the grounds inter alia that the deponent deposited the amount of salary through tender, a copy of which is Annexure C-3 to the counter-af fidavit on record. It was pleaded further that by virtue of the order dated 29-1-1999, this Court had simply dismissed the petitioners application seeking dismissal of the second appeal filed by the Cane Department and as such no order was passed by the Court issuing any direction to the appellants and, therefore, no ques tion of any breach or contempt of such order would arise. It has also been con tended that where there is specific provision for execution of a decree, a con tempt petition will not lie. In addition to all the contesting averments as mentioned above, the opposite party has also tendered his unconditional apology.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the opposite party and perused the record.

5. A perusal of the order dated 24-2-1984 passed in the Second Appeal No. 733 of 1983 would reveal that the stay order granted initially by the High Court was modified with the direction to the appel lants to deposit the entire salary payable to the respondent in this Court within one month. It was further directed that in case of default, the stay order would stand automatically vacated.

6. The crucial question which would crop up for determination is as the whether the aforesaid conditional stay order had been complied with or not by the appellants. It is admitted to the opposite party that no deposit of the decretal sum was ever made in the High Court. He has, however, submitted th