IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORDER 31.3.2008. S.B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.278/1999 Khairuddin Vs. Bhagwati Narayan. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Shri Virendra Bandhu, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Rajeev Bandhu for the appellant. This revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 22.2.1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Jaipur city, Jaipur upholding the order dated 29.5.1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Jaipur West in civil misc. contempt application No.3/1990 by which the petitioner was found guilty of having flouted the order dated 4.2.1987 passed by the court during the pendency of the suit filed by Bhagwati Narayan the respondent herein against the petitioner. The facts in brief are that while deciding the application for grant of temporary injunction it was directed on 4.2.1987 that the petitioner herein, is permitted to raise construction on the condition that he would submit an undertaking that in case the suit is decreed against him, in that event he would remove such constructions at his own cost and will not claim any compensation for the same. On issuing the notices to the defendant petitioner herein by the court below, the petitioner submitted a reply that he in fact did submit an undertaking on 6.4.1987 before raising construction but on the said date as the advocates were on strike he had filed the said undertaking personally after having got the same prepared by his counsel Smt. Indira Dwevedi, Advocate. He accordingly submitted that the defendant did not commit any breach of the order willfully. The two courts below have found the petitioner guilty of the breach of the undertaking and directions issued on 6.12.1987 permitting the petitioner to raise the construction after submitting the undertaking. This court had issued the notices to the plaintiff respondent vide order dated 21.1.2004 but despite the notices having been served neither the plaintiff non petitioner nor his counsel has appeared on his behalf. Since the matter is of contempt, which is primarily one between the court and the contemnor as such this court is proceeding to decide this revision petition at this stage itself. More particularly because of the facts which are mentioned hereinbelow. Learned Senior counsel submits that the petitioner had in fact submitted the undertaking on 6.4.1987and also produced the office copy of the same retained by the petitioner but on account of the fact that on the said date the advocates were on strike the undertaking which was submitted by him personally was probably not taken on record and the petitioner assuming that he had complied with the directions proceeded to raise construction thereafter. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had not deliberately flouted the orders passed by the court and sincerely wanted to comply with the same otherwise he would not have contacted his counsel and got the undertaking drafted and proceeded to the court to file the same on 6.4.1987. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that there is now no necessity of going into the above question as in fact the suit which was filed by the respondent plaintiff Bhagwati Narain came to be dismissed on 16.7.1997. Thus the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner firstly did not flout the order given by the court as he in fact did submit the undertaking on 6.4.1987 after the order dated 4.2.1987 passed by the appellate court modifying the order of temporary injunction dated 7.10.1985 and further that with the dismissal of the suit the consequences as provided in the order dated 4.2.1987 of removing the constructions also has lost its significance. I have considered the above submission of the learned senior counsel and in the facts and circumstances more particularly the fact that the suit filed by the respondent Bhagwati Narain against the petitioner defendant for restraining him from raising construction which lead to the order dated 4.2.1987 being passed by the learned appellate court modifying of the temporary injunction order passed by the trial court requiring submission of the undertaking has been dismissed, thus entire exercise is one in futility and only academic. Accordingly I am inclined to accept this revision petition on the submission of the learned counsel that the petitioner did in fact comply with the order dated 4.2.1987 and never intended to flout the orders of the court and set aside the impugned order dated 29.5.1998 passed in appeal. This revision petition stands allowed and the stay application stands disposed of. (DALIP SINGH),J. Ramchandrkhatri,PS