JUDGMENT Surinder Sarup, J.—This is an application under section 2 (b) read with section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act). The same has arisen out of execution proceedings in respect of a decree passed by this Court in exercise of its original jurisdiction. 2. Briefly, the facts are that one Hira Lal (since deceased) had approached the plaintiff for the grant of a loan facility for purchase of a second-hand Tata Truck on hire-purchase basis. For this purpose, he sought a loan of Rs. 1,50,000. After completing the necessary formalities, the plaintiff sanctioned tie loan for the said amount. S/Shri Narinder Singh Anand and C. L. Joshi stood surety for repayment of this loan. Since the loan was not paid back, the plaintiff i. e. Bank of India filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,91,052.91 P., which included the principal amount of the loan alongwith stipulated and agreed interest upto 159-1983. 3. Ultimately, the parties compromised the dispute and their statements were also recorded by this Court, namely, Hira Lal loanee (defendant No. 1), Narinder Singh Anand and C. L. Joshi sureties (defendants No. 2 and 3, respectively). Without going into the details, for the purpose of this application, it would be sufficient to state that C. L. Joshi aforesaid gave his statement to the effect, inter alia that the plaintiff should realise the decretal amount from defendant No. 1 in the first instance. In case he is unable to do so, then he would be at liberty to proceed against the property of the said C. L. Joshi for realisation of the decretal amount or its balance, Alongwith the statements of the parties, their respective learned Counsel also made their statements before this Court. On behalf of the plaintiff, his learned Counsel gave the following statement on 2-4-1984 :— "I have heard the statements of Hira Lal (defendant No. 1), Narinder Singh (defendant No. 2) and C. L. Joshi (defendant No 3) recorded on 27-3-1984. I accept these statements. The plaintiffs suit may be decreed in terms of the statements made by these defendants. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are the guarantees for the repayment of the loan and they have other properties. In the interest of justice defendants Nos. I accept these statements. The plaintiffs suit may be decreed in terms of the statements made by these defendants. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are the guarantees for the repayment of the loan and they have other properties. In the interest of justice defendants Nos. 2 and 3 may not alienate, transfer or dispose of their properties or encumber the same in any manner whatsoever till the whole of the decretal amount is satisfied except with the permission of the Court. While seeking permission of the Court, notice of the application may be sent to the decree-holder." Thereupon, on the same date, the learned Counsel for the defendants No. 2 and 3 (Narinder Singh Anand and C. L. Joshi) also gave his statement to the following effect: "Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 accept the statement of the learned Counsel for the plaintiff and they shall not transfer their immovable property except with the permission of the Court as desired by the plaintiff.” 4. On the basis of these statements of the parties and their learned Counsel respectively, this Court passed a judgment and decree on the same date, i. e. 2-4-1984, thereby decreeing the plaintiffs suit for recovery of Rs. 1,91,052.91 P. against all the defendants with costs. In the judgment, it was specifically mentioned that the defendants shall be bound by the terms of the statements recorded on 27 3-1984. It may be mentioned here that the statements of the parties were recorded on 27-3-1984, while the statements of their respective learned Counsel were recorded on 2-4-1984, on which date the said decree was passed. In the decree drawn up in consequence of the said judgment, it has again been categorically mentioned that the defendants shall be bound by the terms of the statement recorded on 27-3-1984 and 2-4-1984, i. e. the date of the judgment. 5. The present application has been filed on the ground that during the pendency of the proceedings in Execution of the said decree, Shri C L. Joshi (defendant No. 3 surety and one of the judgment-debtors in the execution proceedings) sold his property to his son vide sale-deed registered at Sr No. 283 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Shimla on 15-5-1986. According to the plaintiff/decree-holder, the said C. L. Joshi has thus violated the undertaking given by him through his learned Counsel on 2-4-1984 to the effect that he shall not transfer his immovable property except with the permission of the Court. He is thus guilty of wilful violation of the undertaking given on his behalf and has committed contempt of Court. Hence this application. 6. In the reply filed by C. L. Joshi to this application, all the allegations contained therein have been controverted. However, it has not been denied that he has transferred his immovable property to his son through sale deed dated 15-5-1986, as has been alleged in the application of the plaintiff/decree- holder. 7. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by an order of this Court dated 15-7-1995 : "1. Whether J. D. No. 3 Shri C. L. Joshi has committed the Contempt of Court as alleged ? O. P. Applicant 2. Relief" The parties have led their evidence and their respective learned Counsel have been heard at length The findings, issue-wise, are as under : Issue No. 1 : 8. It is the admitted case of the parties that a compromise had been arrived at in the main suit (C S. No 102 of 1983), and their statements as well as the statements of their respective learned Counsel were recorded on 27-3 1984 and 2-4-1984, respectively. On the basis of these statements, the plaintiffs suit was decreed on 2-4-1984 in the terms afore-mentioned. On behalf of the plaintiff, his learned Counsel had stated at that time that defendants No. 2 and 3, i e., Narinder Singh Anand and C L Joshi, respectively may not alienate, transfer or dispose of their property or encumber the same; in any manner, whatsoever, till the whole of the decretal amount is satisfied, except with the permission of the Court (emphasis supplied) The learned Counsel appearing at that time on behalf of the said defendants, including C. L Joshi (defendant No 3) had accepted the statement of the plaintiffs counsel and had given an undertaking that they shall not transfer their immovable property except with the permission of the Court, as desired by the plaintiff. This clearly goes to show that C L Joshi could not transfer his immovable property without the permission of the Court till the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff on 2-4-1984 was satisfied. 9. As already indicated above, there is no specific denial in the reply of C L. Joshi to the averment in the application of the plaintiff that he had actually transferred his immovable property to his son vide sale deed dated 15-5-1986. Moreover, his cross-examination on behalf of the decree-holder dated 8-4 1996 is quite revealing. He has admitted that he stood surety for the loan obtained by Shri Hira Lal (deceased J. D. No. 1) from the decree holder. He has also admitted that he was represented in the main suit by Shri Devinder Gupta, Advocate and that he had given a statement in Court on 27-3-1984. He could not deny that he had authorised his counsel to make statements on his behalf, including entering into a compromise. He has denied for want of knowledge as to what statement his counsel had made on his behalf at that time. He has admitted that he sold his property situate at Krishna Nagar, Shimla to his son in the year 1986, and had not applied to the Court for permission to dispose of that property. He has further admitted that whatever steps his counsel took in the case, were for his benefit. 10. In view of the facts narrated above, the question that now arises is as to whether the statement given by the then learned Counsel of Shri C. L. Joshi on 2-4-1984 was an undertaking or not. It has been vehemently argued by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff-decree-holder that it was a definite undertaking which C. L. Joshi judgment-debtor has flagrantly flouted, and thus he is guilty of an act of contempt of Court. This is so because the said undertaking has been incorporated in the decree passed by this Court on 2-4-1984 in favour of the plaintiff/deem -holder. In support of her contention, the learned Counsel for the decree holder has cited Fern Bala Dassi v. Sundar Shaw and others, AIR 1953 Cal 627. This is so because the said undertaking has been incorporated in the decree passed by this Court on 2-4-1984 in favour of the plaintiff/deem -holder. In support of her contention, the learned Counsel for the decree holder has cited Fern Bala Dassi v. Sundar Shaw and others, AIR 1953 Cal 627. It has been laid down therein that breach of an undertaking given to (he Court to do or not to do a certain thing m the interest of a private party is mainly and sub-stantially contempt in procedure or civil contempt. 11. On behalf of J D No 3 l e C L Joshi. has Earned Counsel has submitted that no contempt has been committed in the circumstances of the case. It has also been contended by the learned Counsel that the alleged breach of an undertaking having been committed in 1986 and the present application having been filed in 1992. the present application is time barred under section 20 of the Act, which prescribes the limitation of a period of one year for initiating proceedings of contempt by the Court either on its own motion or otherwise, from the date en which the con-tempt is alleged to have been committed. In support of this argument regarding limitation, the learned Counsel for the J D No 3 C L Joshi has cited High Court of Karnataka v. Y K Subbanna and others 1990 Cr. LJ 1159 ;Smt Bano v Ram Autar Gautam and others, 1987 Cr LJ 647 and Ram Prakash and Bros and others v. Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow and others, 1983 12. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties I am of the view that the statement given by the learned Counsel ,for the defendant J.D. No. 3 C.L. Joshi on 2-4-1984 before the Court was an undertaking on his behalf. In the circumstances of the case narrated above Sti8 the said C. L Joshi has wilfully violated the said undertaking by disposing of his immovable property in 1986 to his son by way of sale Without permission of the Court. He has thus committed a civil contempt by not only violating the said undertaking but has also disobeyed the judgement and decree passed by this Court in C S No. 102 of 1983 dated 2-4-1984, inasmuch as the said undertaking is incorporated in the decree itself 13. He has thus committed a civil contempt by not only violating the said undertaking but has also disobeyed the judgement and decree passed by this Court in C S No. 102 of 1983 dated 2-4-1984, inasmuch as the said undertaking is incorporated in the decree itself 13. However, in view of the bar of limitation, provided under section 20 of the Act, the application is time-barred. The breach of undertaking in this case was committed m 1986, whereas the application has been filed in 1992 It is thus beyond the period of limitation of one year as provided under section 20 of the Act. Moreover, there is no expiation Sin the application nor there is any discernible reason in the record as to the decree-holder got knowledge of the transfer of his property by C. L. Joshi to his son in 1986, or what prevented him from filing the present application within the statutory period of limitation. This issue decided accordingly. Relief: 14. For/he reason recorded above, this application is dismissed In the circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs. Application dismissed