IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CACP NO. 4 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.9.2009. M/s Heritage Autos (P) Ltd., Mohali and another ......Appellants Vs. M/s United Switchgears (P) Ltd. ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY PRESENT: Mr.Anupam Gupta Advocate and Mr.Mansur Ali, Advocate, for appellants. Mr.IPS Doabia, Advocate, for respondent. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1. The appellants are aggrieved by the order of learned Single Judge dated 14.5.2009 holding that their explanation for not vacating the premises in question by 31.7.2008 could not be accepted and prima facie they were liable for committing contempt. Appellant No.2 has been directed to remain present for framing of formal charge. 2. Learned counsel for contempt petitioner submits that the appeal is pre-mature and is not maintainable as charge is yet to be framed and the opinion expressed in the impugned order is prima facie only for the purpose of framing charge. The objection whether the appellants have not committed breach of undertaking on account of subsequent agreement reached outside the court is yet to be decided. 3. In view of the statement of learned counsel for the contempt petitioner that the impugned order does not finally decide the issue of violation of undertaking one way or the other, learned counsel for the CACP NO. 4 of 2009 [2] appellants does not press this appeal at this stage. We make it clear that prima facie opinion expressed for framing charge will not be treated as conclusive for final determination of the issue. 4. The appeal is dismissed as not pressed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE (DAYA CHAUDHARY) September 10, 2009 JUDGE raghav