Breach of solvent surety by selling property constitutes civil contempt due to implicit undertaking to keep it unencumbered; post-breach apologies rejected unless bona fide, but settlement undertaking allows discharge with nominal fine.

JUDGMENT :

FIRST SESSION

1. This contempt petition is filed by the original plaintiffs alleging willful breach of the order dated 2^nd May 2011, passed in Spl. Summary Suit No. 207 of 2009 granting conditional leave to defend on furnishing a solvent surety equal to the claim amount, read with the order dated 10^th October 2011, passed by this court in Writ Petition No. 8116 of 2011, confirming the order passed by the trial court.

2. As per the conditional leave granted, solvent surety was submitted in respect of Gat No. 775 by submitting the solvency certificate of respondent no.2. After submitting the solvent surety, the written statement of respondent no.1 was taken on record, and the suit proceeded for trial. Respondent no.1 is the original defendant no.4 in the summary suit, and respondent no. 2 is the father of defendant no.4, who had submitted the solvency certificate for the solvent surety offered on behalf of respondent no.1 (defendant no.4) as the condition for leave to defend.

3. In breach of the solvent surety submitted to the court, respondent no.2 has executed a registered sale deed dated 13^th June 2023 in favour of the third party. Respondent no.1 has also signed the sale deed as a confirming party. There is no dispute that, in breach of the solvent surety submitted in the trial court, the respondents have executed the registered sale deed. Hence, by order dated 17^th October 2025, this court recorded prima facie findings that there is a willful and deliberate breach committed by the respondents of the order dated 2^nd May 2011 passed in Spl. Summary Suit No. 280 of 2009, order dated 10^th October 2011, passed in Writ Petition No. 8166 of 2011, and order dated 7^th April 2014, passed in Writ Petition No. 6435 of 2013.

4. The contempt notice is served upon the respondents, and they have filed their affidavit-in-reply. The respondents admit that, in breach of the solvent surety submitted, the sale deed was executed. However, they have tendered an unconditional apology with an explanation that since the respondents were in financial need, they executed the sale deed. They have stated that, in view of the facts and circumstances explained in the affidavit, they lost track of the orders passed by the court and proceeded to execute the sale deed. The respondents have further contended that they are agreeable to furnish a fresh solvent surety in respect of some other property. It is also contended on behalf of the respondents that they may either be permitted to replace the solvent surety or to deposit the amount of Rs. 2,30,00,000/-, which is the principal claim in the summary suit. Thus, it is contended by the respondents that their unconditional apology be accepted.

5. The contempt petitioners are the original plaintiffs who have filed the summary suit for the claim of Rs. 2,30,00,000/- with interest of 18% based on an agreement dated 11^th February 2009 executed by the authorised partner of defendant no.1, a partnership firm, in favour of the plaintiffs, agreeing to pay compensation in lieu of the flats agreed to be sold to the plaintiffs. There is no dispute that the plaintiffs have paid a total of Rs. 46,50,000/- for purchasing two flats in the project developed by defendant no. 1 firm. Defendant no.4 is one of the partners of defendant no.1 partnership firm. The plaintiffs have also pleaded that the defendants had