The contempt petition was dismissed as the respondent vacated the premises, indicating lack of ongoing contempt proceedings.

ORDER

This contempt petition has been filed for the alleged disobedience of the undertaking dated 07.03.2025 given by the respondent, which was recorded by this Court in its order dated 07.03.2025 passed in E.P. No.13 of 2024.

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent/judgment debtor did not vacate the premises, based on his undertaking dated 07.03.2025, which is recorded by this Court in its order dated 07.03.2025 passed in E.P. No.13 of 2024, which is the subject matter of this contempt petition but the respondent was evicted by orders passed in E.P. No.109 of 2025 filed by the petitioner. Therefore, he would submit that the respondent will have to be punished.

3.Since the respondent has already vacated the premises though not as per the undertaking given by the respondent before this Court, which was recorded by this Court in its order dated 07.03.2025 passed in E.P. No.13 of 2024, the respondent having been evicted from the very same premises by the petitioner, the question of keeping this contempt petition pending and taking action against the respondent does not arise. If the petitioner had suffered any loss on account of the delay on the part of the respondent to vacate the subject premises, the petitioner will have to take separate action against the respondent in the manner known to the petitioner under law.

4.Since the respondent has vacated the premises, this contempt petition is closed. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to take separate legal action against the respondent for the delay in vacating the premises and for initiating execution petition to evict the respondent despite an undertaking given by the respondent to vacate the premises on his own.