JUDGMENT M. Srinivasan, C. J. (Oral): This appeal is against the order passed by the Single Judge of this Court in Contempt Petition (C) No.54/92 punishing the appellants herein with a sentence of imprisonment for six months and payment of Rs.2000/- by way of fine. The relevant facts are as follows. 2. The appellants entered into an agreement of sale with the respondent of a truck for Rs.1,72,000/-, which was to be paid by them to Canera Bank, Mandi in equal installments along with interest and other charges commencing from the month of March 1990. The ownership of the vehicle and other documents were to remain with the respondent till the full and final settlement of the loan was made with the Bank. The respondent paid the taxes and liabilities till the execution of the agreement. The possession of the vehicle was handed over to the appellants. The appellants failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement with the result that the respondent took back the possession of the vehicle in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement. The appellants lodged a report with the police at Sundernagar and the respondent and others were arrested. The appellants also moved an application under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sundernagar. By order dated 19.12,1990, the possession of the vehicle was directed to be handed over to the appellants. Thus, they were in possession of the vehicle and in enjoyment of the income. The respondent filed a revision petition before the Sessions Judge, Mandi, which was allowed by order dated 8.1.1991 and the restoration of the vehicle to the respondent was directed by the Sessions Judge. The matter was brought to this Court in a revision petition and pending the same under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the order of the Sessions Judge, Mandi was stayed. During the pendency of the said petition, the appellants filed an undertaking in this Court stating that they will indemnify the loss whatever accrued to the petitioner by use of the vehicle by them. The undertaking was in an affidavit and it was accepted by the Court on 24.1.1991 and the order was passed on that day on Cr. M. P. No. 1, 3 of 1991. 3. The undertaking was in an affidavit and it was accepted by the Court on 24.1.1991 and the order was passed on that day on Cr. M. P. No. 1, 3 of 1991. 3. The undertaking related to the period from 12.2.1990 to 21.9.1991, during which the appellants were in possession of the vehicle We had already referred to the filing of the revision petition by the appellants in this Court. That was registered as Criminal Revision No.3 of 1991. It was dismissed ultimately on August 6, 1991 by a Single Judge of this Court The learned Judge, however, observed that the appellants would be liable to act according to the undertaking given by them before this Court on January 24,1991 referred to in the order of that date on Cr. M. P. No. 13 of 1991. 4. The respondent issued a notice on 7/3/92 to the appellants calling upon them to pay the loss incurred by him at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month and also a sum of Rs.12,000/- representing some parts of the vehicle, filed a contempt petition No.54 of 1992 praying for punishing the appellants for having committed breach of undertaking and thus being liable for contempt. In the petition, it was alleged that the appellants were liable to make good the loss suffered by the respondent at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month, thus making up a total of Rs.95,000/- for the period from 12.2.1990 to 21.9.1991. Another sum of Rs.12,000/- was claimed to represent the value of certain parts, namely, battery, keys, tools, six tyers etc. It was also the claim of the respondent that the appellants were liable to pay a sum of Rs.500/- per day by way of daily income from 12.2.1990 to 21.9.1991. 5. In the application for contempt, notices were served on the appellants and they were called upon to file their replies on or before December 24,1992. The appellants prayed for time to file replies and the matter was adjourned to 7.1.1993. The appellants had not filed any reply by then and the matter was directed to be posted after winter vacation and thereafter it appeared in the list on 4.3.1993. The appellants did not choose to appear before the Court or file any reply whatever in the contempt petition. 6. The appellants had not filed any reply by then and the matter was directed to be posted after winter vacation and thereafter it appeared in the list on 4.3.1993. The appellants did not choose to appear before the Court or file any reply whatever in the contempt petition. 6. The learned Single Judge after setting out the aforesaid facts and taking note of the fact that the appellants had not filed any reply to the contempt petition held that the appellants had violated the undertaking given by them to the Court deliberately and thus committed contempt of Court. The learned Judge sentenced the appellants to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in each case. 7. It is the said order, which is challenged in this appeal. It is seen from the records that there was no order of any Court quantifying the damages or loss suffered by the respondent. No doubt, the appellants had given an undertaking to the Court to make good the loss suffered by the respondent. Unless the loss had been quantified by any order of the Court and the appellants failed to make good such loss, there cannot be any question of contempt having been committed by the appellants as such. The mere allegation of the respondent that he had suffered a loss of Rs.5,000/- per month and other losses set out in the application for contempt would not enable him to contend that the appellants have committed a breach of their undertaking given to this Court. Unfortunately, the learned Judge has over-looked this aspect of the matter. The respondent has not even chosen to give any evidence in the contempt petition, to the effect that he had suffered a loss of Rs.5,000/- per month or suffered other losses as mentioned in the petition. In the circumstances, the appellants cannot be held guilty of the contempt for the violation of the undertaking given to this Court. 8. The only course, which was available to the respondent was to initiate proceedings in a competent Court and got the loss quantified and it is only thereafter non-payment of such loss would give rise to the proceedings in contempt. 9. Hence, the order of the learned Judge passed against the appellants in Contempt Petition No.54 of 1992 is un-sustainable and it is hereby set aside. 9. Hence, the order of the learned Judge passed against the appellants in Contempt Petition No.54 of 1992 is un-sustainable and it is hereby set aside. The appeal is allowed and the contempt petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. 10. It is stated that the fine amount has been deposited by the appellants during the pendency of the appeal. The appellants are entitled to get a refund of the said amount. The Registry shall refund the amount to the appellants. The bail bonds excuted by the appellants are consequentially cancelled.