Nisha Kanto Roy Chowdhury vs Smt. Saroj Bashini Goho on 19 November, 1947
13. Mr. Chakraborty and Mr. Gupta did not dispute the proposition if it is found undertaking having been given clearly to the Court and there is wilful breach there of certainly, contempt proceeding will lie. Both the learned counsels have relied on the Division bench Judgment of this Court rendered in case of Nisha Kanto Roy Chowdhury v. Saroj Bashini Goho . In that case the Division Bench while upsetting the order of eviction of the learned single Judge on the fact found there was no undertaking given to the Court and it was given to the parties. In that case the appellant purported to settle the suit on compromise. The tenant/appellant gave undertaking, which was embodied in the written agreement to remove certan images installed in the suit premises. On the basis of this agreement the suit was decreed on compromise. The Division Bench of this Court did not accept the argument of the landlord that since undertaking recorded in the agreement between the parties, which was ultimately accepted by the Court by passing a decree should be read and construed as having given to the Court although there was no specific expression in the clause to whom undertaking was given. The Court held that in such a situation it could not be held that undertaking given to the Court rather it was given to the party. However, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment remains in later part of paragraph 20, which is quoted hereunder.