IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CACP No.8 of 2002(O&M) Date of decision: 27.10.2009 Sital Parkash Jain. -----Appellant Vs. Jawahar Lal Jain and another. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- None. --- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, convicting the appellant for contempt and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default, to further undergo imprisonment for one month. 2. The appellant entered into a compromise with the respondents on 24.3.1998. On the basis of above compromise and further consent statements made before this Court, order dated 21.4.1999 was passed by this Court in Civil Revision No.1061 of 1999. Since the appellant failed to carry out the undertaking given, contempt petition was filed, which was disposed of by the impugned order dated 21.12.2001 with the following finding:- CACP No.8 of 2002 “The facts and circumstances of the case in hand as discussed above, clearly indicate that it is a clear cut case of willful disobedience of the court’s order. It is well settled that judicial orders are to be properly understood and complied with. Even negligence and carelessness can amount to disobedience particularly when attention of the person is drawn to the court’s orders and its implication, as has been observed in Kapildeo Prasad Sah and other’s case (supra). It is further observed that disobedience of court’s orders strikes at the very root of rule of law on which our system of governance is based. Power to punish for contempt is necessary for the maintenance of effective legal system. It is exercised to prevent perversion of course of justice.” 3. During pendency of this appeal, the appellant expressed willingness to take steps to comply with the undertaking. This was so recorded in order of this Court dated 15.3.2002. Later, an affidavit was filed by the appellant, as noticed in order dated 20.3.2002. Vide order dated 8.8.2002, on joint request of the parties, Tehsildar, Hoshiarpur was requested to oversee the implementation of the undertaking and give a report. Though report of the Tehsildar dated 12.9.2002 was received, stand of the respondents was that the dispute still existed. Accordingly, this appeal was admitted. On 19.11.2008, a Local Commissioner was appointed to give effect to the terms of the compromise. Report dated 8.1.2009 has been received. No objection has been filed by either of the parties to the said 2 CACP No.8 of 2002 report. In the meanwhile, there was a proposal to refer the matter for mediation, but since both the parties did not agree, the said proposal was not carried out. 4. In view of report of the Local Commissioner, the appellants appear to have taken some steps to carry out the terms of the compromise. 5. None appears for either of the parties. 6. We are of the view that steps having been taken to comply with the undertaking, it is not possible to further examine the disputed question whether the undertaking has been fully complied with. It will be in the interest of justice to set aside the impugned order of conviction and sentence and relegate the contempt petitioner to alternative remedy of executing the terms of the undertaking in accordance with law. We order accordingly. 7. The appeal is disposed of. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE October 27, 2009 ( GURDEV SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 3