Back
1984 Supreme(All) 468
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
I.P. SINGH, J.
Hari Shanker Srivastava - Appellant
Versus
Savitri Devi - Respondent
Civil Contempt Petition No. 274 of 1983
Decided on : Sep 26, 1984
M.S. Srivastava, Rajesh Tandon, A.R. Sand, R.A. Mishra, J. Sahai, Ajit Kumar, S.K. Kulshrestha
An undertaking to the court must be valid, given within the stipulated time, and signed by the applicants personally in order to be enforceable.
Headnote:
CONTEMPT OF COURT - CONDIITONAL ORDER - UNDERTAKING - VALIDITY - INTERPRETATION - COURT'S ACCEPTANCE - [SECTION 12, CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971]
Fact of the Case:
In a civil revision, the court granted the applicants two months to vacate the disputed accommodation, subject to their giving an undertaking to vacate and depositing two months' rent. The applicants submitted an undertaking through their counsel within two weeks, but the court found that the undertaking was not valid as it was not given within the stipulated time and was not signed by the applicants personally.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the undertaking was not a valid undertaking in compliance with the court's order and, therefore, it could not operate as an undertaking either as desired or accepted by the court. Accordingly, no question of violation of any undertaking to the court was involved which could be termed as contempt of court.
Issues: 1. Whether the undertaking given by the applicants was a valid undertaking in compliance with the court's order? 2. Whether the undertaking was given within the stipulated time and signed by the applicants personally?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. An undertaking to the court becomes complete only when it is accepted by the court. 2. The undertaking must be given within the stipulated time and signed by the applicants personally.
Final Decision: The contempt petition was dismissed.
J. P. Singh, J.
1. This Civil Contempt Petition has been filed by Hari Shanker Srivastava against Smt. Savitri Devi and 5 other respondents to punish them under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Act No. 70 of 1971) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for being In Contempt for violating the 'under-taking' given by them to the court in persuance of this court's order dated 8-12-1982 passed in Civil Revision No. 647 of 1983 (Smt. Savitri Devi and others defendants-applicants-revisionists versus Hari Shanker Srivastava plaintiff-opposite party).
2. It would be worthwhile to quote the said order dated 8-12-1982 to appreciate the things
"Heard learned counsel. I see no error of law or procedure to call for an interference with the impugned order. Rejected. Learned counsel prayed for some time for the applicants to vacate the accommodation in dispute. Three months time has already been granted by the court below. However, in the interest of justice two months' time is granted provided the applicants give an under-taking in writing in the court below within two weeks that they would deliver vacant possession to respondent no. 1 immediately on the expiry of two months from today and also deposit an amount equivalent to two months rent within 15 days from today. In case this is not complied with the decree of the court can be put in execution on the expiry of 15 days from today."
It is obvious that this was a conditional order in the sense that if the condition imposed by this court by the above order would be fulfilled by Smt. Savitri Devi and others revisionists (present respondents in the present contempt petition) then they would have the benefit of remaining in the accommodation in dispute for a period of two months calculated from 8-12-1982. In the nature of things it was upon the present respondents to fulfil that condition and obtain benefit of the order or not to fulfil that condition and forge the benefit of the order.
3. According to the present petitioner Hari Shanker Srivastava the present respondents did chose to comply with the condition imposed and submitted the required 'undertaking' in the court of IVth Additional District Judge, Allahabad in Original Suit No. 32 of 1981. That 'undertaking' is Annexure-6 to the present Contempt Petition and is in the form of an application the contents of which run as follows -
"The humble petition on behalf of the J.D's is as follows-
1. That the Hon'ble Court had granted time upto 17-12-1982 to J.D's to vacate the Home.
2. That the J.D's filed revision in the High Court against the decree passed by the Hon'ble Court. The Revision has been dismissed but the J.D's have been allowed time till 8-2-1983 to vacate the House provided two months rent alongwith an Undertaking to vacate by 8-2-1983 is given by the J.D's. The J.D's hereby undertake to vacate the premises by 8-2-1983.
3. That the J.D's are filing the certified copy of the order dated 8-12-82 passed by the High Court so that no eviction order is passed as ordered by the Hon'ble High Court. Prayer It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to keep the order of the Hon'ble High Court on record so that action is not taken against the said order. Sd. Mool Chandra Mehrotra Advocate Dt. 23-12-82 Counsel for the J.D's. "
4. The petitioner's contention is that by virtue of the said 'undertaking' to the court respondents were to vacate the accommodation in question by 8-2-1983. Since they have not fulfilled that 'undertaking' and have not vacated the said accommodation so they are in contempt of court.
The present application is contested by six respondents dividing themselves in three sets. On behalf of respondents nos. 2 and 4, namely, Prabhat Sharma and Smt. Mamta Sharma a separate counter affidavit has been filed by one Hari Krishna Sharma the husband of Smt. Mamta Sharma and brother-in-law of Prabhat Sharma on 21-9-1983. Counter affidavit on behalf of respondents nos. 1, 3 and 6 was filed by S
