BASAK, B. C. , J. ( 1 ) : This application in contempt arises out of an Order passed by us on the 8th August 1986. The short facts of this case are as follows. The petitioner herein filed a Title Suit against the defendant-tenant, who is the contemner-respondent in the present proceeding, praying for a decree for recovery of khas possession of the suit premises as described in the plaint. The said suit was decreed on 18th June, 1981 and an appeal being Title Appeal No. 793 of 1981 preferred against the said decree was dismissed and the decree passed by the First Court was affirmed by the judgment and decree dated 11th April, 1986 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Alipore. The contemner-opposite party sought to prefer an appeal being S. AT, No. 1905 of l986 against the said decree, dated 11th April, 1986 which came up for admission of appeal under Order 41 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code before us wherein we dismissed the appeal on 5th of August 1986. Thereafter an application was made by the contemner-opposite party for re-calling our Order, dated 5th August 1986. The said application was disposed of by us on the 8th of August 1986 wherein we passed the following Order. "in this matter we dismissed the appeal under Order 41 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code on 5th August 1986. Now the tenant defendant filed an application for recalling the said order. Mr. Roy Chowdhury appearing for the appellant very fairly submits that if six months time is given to his client to vacate the suit premises then his client would voluntarily vacate the suit premises and that he will not press the application. The appellant is present in Court today and upon outh to that effect he has given his undertaking that he will vacate the suit premises voluntarily within the period to be granted. Such undertaking will form part of this Order. Accordingly, we directed that the tenant appellant shall vacate the suit premises within 10th February 1987. In the meantime, the execution proceeding may take place but no effect shall be given to the same till 10th February, 1986, this application is disposed of as above". Such undertaking will form part of this Order. Accordingly, we directed that the tenant appellant shall vacate the suit premises within 10th February 1987. In the meantime, the execution proceeding may take place but no effect shall be given to the same till 10th February, 1986, this application is disposed of as above". ( 2 ) THIS contempt application was filed on 26th March 1986 on the ground that in spite of such Order of this Court, dated 8th August 1986 the contemner-respondent has failed and neglected to vacate the suit premises, by the 10th February, 1987 that is within six months time granted by this Court. This application was admitted and a Rule Nisi was issued. All affidavit-in-opposition has affirmed in this proceedings by the contemner which practically does not make out any defence at all. On the other hand, it appears from the same that the contemner-respondent has chosen to file a suit subsequently being Title Suit No. 14 of 1987 before the 5th Court of the Munsif at Alipore, praying for the following relief. "the plaintiff claims judgment and decree for: (a)declaration that the plaintiff is a tenant under the defendant at a rental of Rs. 20 (Rupees twenty only) per month payable according. to English Calendar month. (b)declaration that the plaintiff has right to stay in the suit premises as long as the defendant has no real intention to use the suit premises as his office-cum-chamber. (c)declaration that the defendant has no right to evict the plaintiff from the decree passed in Title Suit No. 252 of 1979 of the 3rd Court of Additional Munsif at Alipore for the purpose of' using it as a drawing room or for any other purpose other than the purpose of chamber-cum-office and by proceeding with the T. Ex. Case No. 31 of 1986 of the 3rd. Additional Court of the Munsif, Alipore. (d)permanent injunction restraining the defendant from evicting the plaintiff from the suit premises by executing the decree passed in Title Suit No. 252 of 1979 for the purpose of drawing-cum-study room or for any purpose other than that for, which the decree was passed and from proceeding with the T. Ex. Case No. 31 of 1986, of the 3rd. (d)permanent injunction restraining the defendant from evicting the plaintiff from the suit premises by executing the decree passed in Title Suit No. 252 of 1979 for the purpose of drawing-cum-study room or for any purpose other than that for, which the decree was passed and from proceeding with the T. Ex. Case No. 31 of 1986, of the 3rd. Additional Court of the Munsif, Alipore and from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit premises and also restraining the defendant, his men and agents from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession", ( 3 ) IT is further stated in the said affidavit that he had also 5lecl an application under Order 39 Rule 1 read along with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for temporary injunction restraining the defendant from evicting the plaintiff from the suit premises by executing the decree passed stated that an appeal has also been preferred being Miscellaneous Appeal to the Rule issued when the contemner-respondent appeared in Court on the 4th May 1987, we asked him through his Advocate whether he was willing to comply with the order even at that stage, that is, on that date or by the next date. Through his learned Advocate, he stated that he was not in a position to do so. Accordingly direction for filing of affidavit was given. At the time of the hearing of this application the Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that a clear case of contempt has been made out. There has been willful violation of the Order of the Court arid the undertaking given by the contemner-respondent. On behalf of the contemner-respondent practically no submission was made. We adjourned the matter for passing Final Order. When the matter appeared on 28th July 1987, we appointed Mr. Arup Basu an Advocate as Special Officer to take possession of the same as on that occasion, which was after the conclusion of the hearing and before the final order was passed, the contemner-respondent made an offer to hand over the possession of the premises in question. Pursuant to that the special Officer had taken over possession and subsequently handed over possession to the petitioner. ( 4 ) THIS is a clear case of wilful disobedience of an Order of the Court and of an undertaking given to the Court. Pursuant to that the special Officer had taken over possession and subsequently handed over possession to the petitioner. ( 4 ) THIS is a clear case of wilful disobedience of an Order of the Court and of an undertaking given to the Court. There was an order passed dismissing the appeal under Order 41 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. An application was made for recalling the order. When that application was dismissed, prayer was made for some time to be given. Upon such prayer being made such time was given pursuant to the undertaking given. The execution was also stayed for the period. In spite of the same the contemner-respondent did not hand over the possession. There is no excuse or explanation offered. It is the case of wilful disobedience of the order of the Court and a clear case of breach of understanding given to the Court. ( 5 ) THE next question is what sentence should be passed. The contempt proceeding is between the contemner-respondent and the Court. It is not a question of false sense of prestige of the Court but the question of upholding the dignity and prestige of the Court and the question of compliance of Court's order and undertaking given before the Court. In a democratic country it is essential that there must be an independent, impartial but competent and strong judiciary without which a social democratic country like ours cannot survive. For that purpose it is necessary that the administration of justice is to be properly maintained and people have respect for the judiciary particularly of a High Court which is the highest Court in a State. No one, not even the Government, should have the impression that it could ignore or flout any order of any Court willfully. No one can be allowed to have the impression that. it depends on his will whether he would obey the Orders of the Court or not. Unless the Court taken a strong stand in the matter, nothing would be left so far as the dignity and prestige of the Court is concerned. We shall keep the same in mind while considering as to what sentence is to be passed in the present case. It is a case of wilful disobedience and breach of the undertaking. There is practically no explanation at all. We shall keep the same in mind while considering as to what sentence is to be passed in the present case. It is a case of wilful disobedience and breach of the undertaking. There is practically no explanation at all. On the other hand, the contemner-respondent has disclosed in his own affidavit-in-opposition that since then he has filed a suit before the Munsif in the Alipore Court virtually to set aside the crder of this High Court. There is no whisper of apology in the affidavit or during the course of hearing but only before the judgment wag delivered half-heartedly the expression "apology" was uttered. As already stated on the returnable date we wanted to give an opportunity to the contemner-respondent to correct his way but he did not think it fit enough to obey the order of the Court even at that stage, This is not a kind of person who deserve any sympathy from this Court. ( 6 ) TAKING all matters into consideration we are of the opinion that justice would be met if we pass the following order. ( 7 ) THE contemner-respondent Monoranjan Ganguly is found guilty of willful violation of the order of the Court dated 8th August 1985 and the undertaking given by him on that occasion. He is sentenced to imprisonment for a period of seven days as-vie are considered that a fine itself will not meet the ends of justice arid a sentence of imprisonment is necessary. Accordingly he be detained in a civil prison namely, Presidency Jail, Calcutta, for a period of seven days and a fine of Rs. 1000 is also imposed on him. If this fine is not paid within a period of seven days from this date then he will be detained in the civil prison for a further period of seven days. ( 8 ) THE contemner-respondent is present in Court today. The Inspector attached to this High Court is directed to take him into custody forthwith. He shall also pay the costs of this application which is assessed at Rs. 510. ( 9 ) LET operative portion of the judgment countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be given to the learned Advocates of the parties and the Court inspector concerned. Application allowed.