1 S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.32/2007 LRs of Ram Sewak vs Babulal & Ors Date of order : 4.1.2008 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.KR Saran,for the petitioner. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This petition has been filed by the petitioner against the non-petitioner no.1 who was party in S.B.Civil Second Appeal No.482/2005 as appellant and against the Judge of the trial Court- Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) No.2, Bhilwara on the ground that this Court vide order dated 11th May, 2007 passed in S.B.Civil Second Appeal No.482/2005 granted two months time to respondent no.1 to furnish undertaking in case he wants to avail the benefit under the order dated 11th May, 2007 passed in above second appeal. According to the petitioner the order dated 11th May, 2007 was not complied with in time then the petitioner submitted petition for execution of the decree and in stead of furnishing undertaking and depositing the amount as ordered by order dated 11th May, 2007,the respondent no.1-contemnor submitted undertaking and deposited the amount on 1st August, 2007 in stead of before 11th July, 2007. The trial 2 court itself extended the time by accepting the plea of the non-petitioner no.1 that he was sick. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the time could have been extended by the High Court as the time was granted by the High Court and the executing court had no jurisdiction to extend the time. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, by this, the non-petitioner no.1 – the appellant of S.B.Civil Second Appeal No.482/2005 as well as the trial court disobeyed the order of this court and in fact flout the court's order. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the reasons given by the executing court in its order dated 4.8.2007. Assuming for the sake of argument that the non- petitioner no.1 should have applied for extension of time before this Court as the time was granted by this Court and the executing court had no jurisdiction to extend the time even then mere applying before the court for extension of time who had no jurisdiction to extend the time itself cannot amount of disobedience of this court's order. That may be wrong judgment and that may be due to the wrong advise which might have been given to the non- petitioner no.1. Seeking extension of time itself shows that the non-petitioner no.1 is intended to obey the order and, therefore, sought extension of 3 time and never intended to flout the court's order. Otherwise also, the nature of order clearly shows that, that order was in favour of non-petitioner no.1 and it was his choice to take benefit of the order or not. Even if he would not have submitted any undertaking it would not have amount to any contempt of this Court or disobedience of this court's order. At the most he would not have been entitled to take benefit of the order dated 11th May, 2007. The extension of time by the court by passing a judicial order may not be proper and may be absolutely improper but there is no reason to presume that court deliberately with intention to flout this court's order passed the order of extension of time. That judicial order may be illegal and could have been challenged by adopting appropriate remedy, but contempt is not substitute of that remedy and this court is not inclined to entertain the contempt petition in the facts of this case. Hence,the contempt petition of the petitioner is dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-