JUDGMENT J. P. Singh, J. 1. This Civil Contempt Petition has been filed by Hari Shanker Srivastava against Smt. Savitri Devi and 5 other respondents to punish them under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Act No. 70 of 1971) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for being In Contempt for violating the 'under-taking' given by them to the court in persuance of this court's order dated 8-12-1982 passed in Civil Revision No. 647 of 1983 (Smt. Savitri Devi and others defendants-applicants-revisionists versus Hari Shanker Srivastava plaintiff-opposite party). 2. It would be worthwhile to quote the said order dated 8-12-1982 to appreciate the things "Heard learned counsel. I see no error of law or procedure to call for an interference with the impugned order. Rejected. Learned counsel prayed for some time for the applicants to vacate the accommodation in dispute. Three months time has already been granted by the court below. However, in the interest of justice two months' time is granted provided the applicants give an under-taking in writing in the court below within two weeks that they would deliver vacant possession to respondent no. 1 immediately on the expiry of two months from today and also deposit an amount equivalent to two months rent within 15 days from today. In case this is not complied with the decree of the court can be put in execution on the expiry of 15 days from today." It is obvious that this was a conditional order in the sense that if the condition imposed by this court by the above order would be fulfilled by Smt. Savitri Devi and others revisionists (present respondents in the present contempt petition) then they would have the benefit of remaining in the accommodation in dispute for a period of two months calculated from 8-12-1982. In the nature of things it was upon the present respondents to fulfil that condition and obtain benefit of the order or not to fulfil that condition and forge the benefit of the order. 3. According to the present petitioner Hari Shanker Srivastava the present respondents did chose to comply with the condition imposed and submitted the required 'undertaking' in the court of IVth Additional District Judge, Allahabad in Original Suit No. 32 of 1981. 3. According to the present petitioner Hari Shanker Srivastava the present respondents did chose to comply with the condition imposed and submitted the required 'undertaking' in the court of IVth Additional District Judge, Allahabad in Original Suit No. 32 of 1981. That 'undertaking' is Annexure-6 to the present Contempt Petition and is in the form of an application the contents of which run as follows - "The humble petition on behalf of the J.D's is as follows- 1. That the Hon'ble Court had granted time upto 17-12-1982 to J.D's to vacate the Home. 2. That the J.D's filed revision in the High Court against the decree passed by the Hon'ble Court. The Revision has been dismissed but the J.D's have been allowed time till 8-2-1983 to vacate the House provided two months rent alongwith an Undertaking to vacate by 8-2-1983 is given by the J.D's. The J.D's hereby undertake to vacate the premises by 8-2-1983. 3. That the J.D's are filing the certified copy of the order dated 8-12-82 passed by the High Court so that no eviction order is passed as ordered by the Hon'ble High Court. Prayer It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to keep the order of the Hon'ble High Court on record so that action is not taken against the said order. Sd. Mool Chandra Mehrotra Advocate Dt. 23-12-82 Counsel for the J.D's. " 4. The petitioner's contention is that by virtue of the said 'undertaking' to the court respondents were to vacate the accommodation in question by 8-2-1983. Since they have not fulfilled that 'undertaking' and have not vacated the said accommodation so they are in contempt of court. The present application is contested by six respondents dividing themselves in three sets. On behalf of respondents nos. 2 and 4, namely, Prabhat Sharma and Smt. Mamta Sharma a separate counter affidavit has been filed by one Hari Krishna Sharma the husband of Smt. Mamta Sharma and brother-in-law of Prabhat Sharma on 21-9-1983. Counter affidavit on behalf of respondents nos. 1, 3 and 6 was filed by Smt. Savitri Devi respondent no. 1 on 15-2-1984. Respondent no. 5 filed her own counter affidavit on 23-5-1984. Almost common grounds have been taken in all the three counter affidavits. 5. Counter affidavit on behalf of respondents nos. 1, 3 and 6 was filed by Smt. Savitri Devi respondent no. 1 on 15-2-1984. Respondent no. 5 filed her own counter affidavit on 23-5-1984. Almost common grounds have been taken in all the three counter affidavits. 5. From the affidavit and counter affidavits it is a common case that one, Mano was the tenant in the premises in dispute and after his death the present six respondents inherited the said tenancy. Hari Shanker Srivastava, present petitioner, as landlord of the said premises filed Suit Mo. 32 of 1981 under section 20 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against the present six respondents in the court of District Judge, Allahabad. That suit was decreed in favour of Hari Shanker Srivastava by IV Additional District Judge, Allahabad on 17-8-1982. It was against the said decision that Civil Revision No. 647 of 1983 was filed in this Court, in which the order dated 8-12-1982, in question, as already quoted above, was passed. 6. In the above mentioned counter affidavits it was contended that only respondent nos. 2 and 4 (Sri Prabhat Sharma and Smt. Mamta Sharma) reside in the house in suit in their own right while other respondents do not live there in their own right but only as relatives of respondent nos. 2 and 4. All the respondents further tendered their apologies to this court if any contempt is there. The following points were also stressed :- (i) That Prabhat Sharma, present respondent no. 2 was an insane person incapable of understanding his good. He was not properly represented in the said suit. Smt. Mamta Sharma was not served and, as such, the decree in the said suit was not binding on them. As a matter of fact, objection to that effect was taken under section 47, CPC in the execution of the said decree and an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was also moved and the matter was still subjudice. (ii) That the present respondent nos. 2 and 4 had not filed Civil Revision No. 647 of 1983 in this Court. At any rate, the name of Prabhat Sharma present respondent no. 2 was wrongly mentioned as one of the revisionists because he being a person of unsound mind was not in a capacity to participate in the proceeding. (ii) That the present respondent nos. 2 and 4 had not filed Civil Revision No. 647 of 1983 in this Court. At any rate, the name of Prabhat Sharma present respondent no. 2 was wrongly mentioned as one of the revisionists because he being a person of unsound mind was not in a capacity to participate in the proceeding. Here it may be noted that Annexure-4 annexed to the Contempt Petition gives out the array of the parties in the said Civil Revision No. 647 of 1982. It shows that the present respondent no. 4 Smt. Mamta Sharma was not one of the revisionists but was arrayed as proforma- defendant opposite party. Thus, it is clear that the revision was not filed by Smt. Mamta Sharma present respondent no. 4. (iii) That the so-called 'undertaking' was not a valid 'undertaking' to the court and, as such, there does not arise any question of non fulfilment of (hat 'Undertaking' to hold the respondents in Contempt of the Court. The matter covered by first two points enumerated above, will not be gone into in the present Contempt Petition because that matter is already subjudice and it would not be appropriate to discuss that matter here specially when the finding on those points would not be relevant for the purpose of deciding about the alleged Contempt. I, therefore, refrain from expressing any opinion on those points. 7. Coming to the question of 'undertaking' it is well settled that if there exists a valid 'Undertaking' to the court then its wilful breach amounts to Contempt and no justification can be pleaded in defence in contempt proceeding. Thus, if under the alleged 'Undertaking' the six respondents were to vacate the premises in question, on a particular date then its non vacation can not be justified on the ground that they are continuing in possession under any other right or under subsequent order passed by any other court or the like. 8. Thus the only question in the present Contempt proceeding which turns table is enumerated as point no. 3 above. This Court's order dated 8-12-1982 in Civil Revision No. 647 of 1983 could only operate against the five applicants of that revision (present respondent nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6). 8. Thus the only question in the present Contempt proceeding which turns table is enumerated as point no. 3 above. This Court's order dated 8-12-1982 in Civil Revision No. 647 of 1983 could only operate against the five applicants of that revision (present respondent nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6). It would not operate against Smt. Mamta Sharma present respondent no, 4, The said order imposed a condition that the said five applicants revisionists (which would not include Smt. Mamta Sharma) would get a period of two months from 8-12-1982 upto 8-2-1983 to vacate the accommodation in dispute provided the said five applicants gave an 'undertaking' in writing to the court below within two weeks (14 days) from 8-12-1982 i.e. upto 22-12-1982 that they would deliver the vacant possession to respondent no. 1 (Hari Shanker Srivastava) (present petitioner) immediately on the expiry of two months from 8-2-1982, i.e., on 8-2-1983 and further that they deposit an amount equivelent to two months rent within 15 days rom 8-12-1982, i.e., by 23-12-1982. 9. The so-called 'Undertaking' is annexure-6 and is by-way of an application which has already been quoted above. That application was moved on 23-12-1982. The argument on behalf of the present respondents is that, reserving their rights to challenge the said so-called 'undertaking' on other points, the said 'undertaking' was not given within the time of two weeks fixed by this court and, as such, it would not be taken as an 'undertaking' to the court in compliance with that conditional order. The argument is that the said 'undertaking' could only be given and accepted till 22-12-1982 and not thereafter. It is further pointed out that in the said application it was cleverly committed to mention the fact that under the High Court's order the said 'undertaking' was to be given effect, to within two weeks, i.e., upto 22-12-1982. It is, therefore, argued that the said 'Undertaking' given on 23- 12-1982 was of no value and legal consequence which followed from not giving the said 'undertaking' within time, i. e. by 22-12-1982 was that five applicants respondents had chosen not to give the 'undertaking' as required by the condition imposed in the said order of this Court dated 8-12-1982. It is, therefore, argued that the said 'Undertaking' given on 23- 12-1982 was of no value and legal consequence which followed from not giving the said 'undertaking' within time, i. e. by 22-12-1982 was that five applicants respondents had chosen not to give the 'undertaking' as required by the condition imposed in the said order of this Court dated 8-12-1982. It is argued that only effect thereof would be that the said five applicants revisionists were not entitled to remain in possession of the accommodation in dispute for the full grace period of two months, i.e., upto 8-2-1983 and the decree holder could put his decree under execution. I find much force in this contention and I am in agreement with it. 10. It is further contended that the said 'undertaking' was directed to be given by five applicants personally and not through any counsel of their. It is argued that the said 'undertaking' (Annexure-6) was not given under the signatures of the said five applicants-revisionists but was given in the form of an application which was moved by one Sri Mool Chandra Mehrotra, Advocate, counsel for the J.D's. In reply to this argument the learned counsel for the present petitioner, Hari Shanker Srivastava, has argued that the said five applicants could always authorise their counsel to tender the said 'Undertaking' and if the said counsel Sri Mool Chandra Mehrotra in exercise of that authority tendered the said 'Undertaking' it would be quite in order. It is argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that the said authority could only be conferred by a Vakalatnama. A photostat copy of that Vakalatnama has been filed on the record by the present petitioner through Supplementary Rejoinder Affidavit dated 26-7-1984 sworn by his son Atul Kumar Srivastava. A photostat copy of this Vakalatnama dated 19-9 1981 is signed by five applicants revisionists of Revision No. 647 of 1983 and is in favour of Sri Mool Chandra Mehrotra, Advocate. The authority to act on behalf of the said five applicants was conferred by them to their said Advocate through the terms and conditions appearing in the body of the said Vakalatnama. The two relevant terms appearing in the said Vakalatnama, inter alia, are " (a) Sulahnama Dakhil Karne (May file compromise). The authority to act on behalf of the said five applicants was conferred by them to their said Advocate through the terms and conditions appearing in the body of the said Vakalatnama. The two relevant terms appearing in the said Vakalatnama, inter alia, are " (a) Sulahnama Dakhil Karne (May file compromise). (b) Is Mukaddame ke sambandh men doosre (Docdware) Kaam jo zarrori samjhen Karen (may do all other acts which are regarded necessary in connection with the said Suit)." The word 'Sulabnama ' (compromise) occurring in term (a) above is something quite different from 'undertaking' to be given by a party to the court. The difference is obvious because compromise is effected between the parties of the litigation while 'undertaking' is to be given to the court. Trie above term (b), to my mind, also would not include giving an 'undertaking' of any kind to the court so as to bind the clients (applicants-revisionists, who had given this Vakalatnama). I am in agreement with the arguments advanced by the counsel for the respondents that the said 'undertaking' (in whatever terms it was) was not an 'undertaking' given by the five applicants-revisionists (present respondents excluding respondent no. 4 Smt. Mamta Sharma). 11. It is further pointed out by the learned counsel far the respondent that the so-called 'undertaking' Annexure-6 records that J.D's hereby unders take to vacate the premises by 8-12-1983. It is pointed out that in the firs-place the learned counsel Sri Mool Chandra Mehrotra was not having anyt Vakalatnama of Smt. Mamta Sharma and, as such, in mentioning that J.D's undertake to vacate is obviously and apparently over shooting the said Vakalatnama so as to purport to act on behalf of Smt. Mamta Sharma as well. Secondly, this court by its order dated 8-2-1982 had required an 'undertaking' "to deliver vacant possession to respondent no. 1 immediately on the expiry of two months from 8-12-1982." It meant that vacant possession would be delivered to respondent no. 1 (present petitioner Hari Shanker Srivastava) immediately on the expiry of two months ending on 8-2-1983, which meant that the vacant possession would be delivered to Hari Shanker Srivastava difinitely on 9-2-1983. 1 immediately on the expiry of two months from 8-12-1982." It meant that vacant possession would be delivered to respondent no. 1 (present petitioner Hari Shanker Srivastava) immediately on the expiry of two months ending on 8-2-1983, which meant that the vacant possession would be delivered to Hari Shanker Srivastava difinitely on 9-2-1983. It is pointed out that the said 'undertaking' Annexure-6, purports to undertake vacating the premises by 8-2-1983 which in no way correspond to the undertaking desired by this Court and, as such, can not operate as an 'undertaking' coming forth in pursuance of this Court's order dated 8-12-1982. It is further pointed out that 'undertaking' to the court becomes complete only when it is accepted by the court. It is pointed out that there is nothing on the record to show that the said 'undertaking' was ever accepted by the court beyond the fact that it was filed in the form of application, Annexure-6, in the court of IV Additional District Judge, Allahabad in the file of Original Suit No. 32 of 1981. I find much force in this argument. 12. As a result of the above discussion I hold that the so-called 'undertaking' was not a valid 'Undertaking' in compliance with the order of this Court dated 8-12-1982 and, as such, it can not operate as an 'undertaking' either as desired or accepted by the court. Accordingly no question of violation of any 'undertaking' to the court is Involved which could be termed as contempt of Court. This Contempt petition is hereby dismissed. No orders as to costs. Petition dismissed.