JUDGMENT - DAUD S.M., J.:---This petition arises out of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 814 of 1989 decided on 11 and 20 April, 1989. 2. Petitioner had filed a suit for ejectment against the respondent and had secured a decree. Assailing that decree the respondent came by way of the aforesaid writ petition to this Court. The same was rejected by Mr. Justice Kurdukar on 11th April, 1989. Respondent was given time till 31th December, 1989 to vacate upon his filing an undertaking. The said undertaking was filed on 20th April, 1989 on which date the same was accepted and a formal order prohibiting respondent's eviction until 31 December, 1989 was passed. On 16th December, 1989, the respondent filed Regular Civil Suit No. 1420 of 1989. In that suit he contended that the decree secured by the petitioner was null and void. This was because he was in occupation of premises bearing Municipal No. 116 whereas the decree secured by the petitioner pertained to premises bearing Municipal No. 111. In fact premises bearing Municipal No. 111 were in the occupation of his son whereas he himself was in possession of premises bearing Municipal No. 116. An ad interim injunction was passed and after service of the same upon the petitioner, he has come to this Court complaining of respondent having committed contempt. 3. No return has been filed by the respondent. In the plaint filed in Regular Civil Suit No. 993 of 1977 which culminated in Writ Petition No. 814 of 1989, the premises were described as bearing Municipal No. 111. No exception was taken to the correctness of the description. In fact in the written statement filed in that suit, the respondent in para 2 thereof had specifically admitted that the suit premises had been correctly described. Parties were ad idem in relation to the premises to which the suit instituted by the petitioner pertained. Having obtained time till 31 December, 1989 to vacate by the furnishing of an undertaking, it was not open to the respondent to rake up the issue again. The ground put forth by him to assail the decree was patently frivolous. Even if it be assumed that the premises in his occupation bore Municipal No. 116, that was not a reason for instituting a fresh action and delaying his ejectment. The ground put forth by him to assail the decree was patently frivolous. Even if it be assumed that the premises in his occupation bore Municipal No. 116, that was not a reason for instituting a fresh action and delaying his ejectment. He had given an undertaking to a Judge of this Court that he would not raise any objection in regard to his liability to deliver vacant possession to the respondent. Para 1 of the undertaking which is at page 48 of the compilation mentions that respondent was in occupation with his family members of only one room in House No. 111. If at all his son was in possession of the said room, it could have been pursuant to a breach of the undertaking wherein he had committed himself against parting with possession or creating a third party interest in premises bearing Municipal No. 111. Not content with the filing of the suit, the respondent lured the learned Civil Judge to pass an order of ad interim injunction. This surely was a case which required caution. The learned Civil Judge should have refrained from passing the order of ad interim injunction and insisted upon hearing the petitioner before passing an order. The said order cannot be sustained and hence the order : ORDER Respondent is held to be in contempt of this Court having flouted the undertaking accepted by this Court on 20 April 1989. He is given three weeks' time as from today to vacate the premises failing which the petition will be re-admitted to rule upon the punishment imposable upon him. Petitioner shall get his costs from the respondent who shall in addition bear his own. Order accordingly. -----