Judgment 1. In the instant application the petitioner has prayed for initiation of contempt proceeding against the opposite partv for violating the order dated 28.6.1995 allegedly based on the undertaking given by the opposite party to allot Shop No. B at new market, TELCO, Jamshedpur, in Eviction Appeal No. 18 of 1992. 2. The facts which are relevant for the present case are that the opposite party M/s Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred to as the TELCO) filed a suit being T.S. No. 242 of 1986 in the Court of Munsif, at Jamshedpur for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of default in paying the monthly rent. The petitioner-firm was represented through Damodar Agarwal and he contested the suit, which was ultimately decreed in terms of the judgment dated 22.4.1992. Aggrieved by the said decree the petitioner preferred Title (Eviction) Appeal No. 18 of 1992 in the Court of the District judge, Singhbhum (East) Jamshedpur and the said appeal was eventually transferred for disposal to the Court of the Ist Additional District Judge, Jamshedpur. 3. It is stated that one Mr. Khurana, Director-in-charge of M/s TELCO wanted a shop at TELCO market and he directed his subordinates to allot one shop to his favourite. As no shop was available and the petitioners shop was under litigation, the officers influenced the petitioner to vacate the shop and the petitioner would be allotted another shop. It is stated that believing the promise made by the officers of the opposite party, a compromise petition was filed on 23.5.1995 in the aforesaid appeal and in the said compromise petition undertaking was given by TELCO that they would allot Shop No. B belonging to Jamshedpur Co-operative Stores Ltd. in the name of Sri Sushil Kumar Agarwal preferably within six months or earlier. On the basis of the said compromise the appeal was dismissed by the Ist Addl. District Judge, Jamshedpur, in terms of the order dated 28.6.1995. On the basis of the said compromise the appeal was dismissed by the Ist Addl. District Judge, Jamshedpur, in terms of the order dated 28.6.1995. The petitioners case is that after disposal of the appeal, the petitioner time to time requested the officers of the opposite party to honour the compromise, but they started lingering the matter on one pretext or the other and the shop was not allotted to him According to the petitioner, therefore, the opposite party-TELCO committed contempt of Court and liable to be proceeded under the provision of Contempt of Courts Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act for short). 4. I have heard Mr. S.L. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, learned Sr. Counsel for the opposite party. 5. According to Mr. Agrawal since the opposite party violated the undertaking given to the Court in the compromise petition on the basis of which the order was passed, the opposite party has committed civil contempt and liable to be proceeded. According to the learned counsel admittedly the opposite party failed to allot Shop No.B as agreed in the compromise petition. 6. On the other hand Mr. Singh submitted that it is not a case of civil contempt; inasmuch as the opposite party neither given any undertaking to allot a particular shop No. B nor they have violated any promise or assurance made by the opposite party. According to the learned counsel even if assurance given in the compromise petition has not been fulfilled appropriate remedy available to the petitioner is to execute the decree and the instant proceeding is not maintainable. 7. Before appreciating the rival contentions of the parties, it would be useful to look into the relevant terms of the compromise petition, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 1 to this application, paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 whereof read as under : "3. That the dispute has been settled between the parties. 4. That the appellant has delivered vacant possession of the decretal suit premises on the assurance given by the respondent that a shop premises presently occupied by Jamshedpur Cooperative Stores Limited bearing Shop No.B, at new Market TELCO. Jamshedpur will be allotted in the name of Sushil Kumar Agrawal preferably within six months or earlier soon as it will be vacated by the present occupant. 5. Jamshedpur will be allotted in the name of Sushil Kumar Agrawal preferably within six months or earlier soon as it will be vacated by the present occupant. 5. That it is further agreed by the parties that in case of any obstruction in the vacation of the aforesaid shop premises by the J.C.S. Ltd., within the time stipulated above the respondent company will allot so other shop in some other market complex within the TELCO area within six months time." On the basis of the aforesaid compromise the Ist Additional District Judge passed the following order on 28.6.1995, a copy of which is Annexure 2 to this application : "28.6.1995. Lawyers attendances have been filed on behalf of appellant and respondent. Heard the compromise petition dated 23.5.1995. The appeal is dismissed in terms of compromise. Compromise petition to form part of the decree." 8. From perusal of the compromise petition, it appears that the petitioner who was tenant appellant delivered possession of the suit premises on the assurance given by the opposite party that the shop premises bearing No. B at new market, TELCO would be allotted in the name of Sushil Kumar Agrawal. From paragraph 5 of the compromise petition, it appears that the parties agreed that in case of any obstruction in the vacation of the aforesaid shop premises by the Jamshedpur Co-operative Societies Ltd. within the time stipulated above the respondent Company will allot another shop in some other market complex within six months. 9. From the compromise petition, it does not appear that the opposite party-TELCO gave an undertaking to the Court to provide the petitioner Shop No. B or any other shop in some other market complex. It was simply reciprocal promises made between the parties on the basis of which they entered into the compromise and the appeal was dismissed. The order by which the appeal was dismissed does not show that the appeal was dismissed on the basis of undertaking given by the opposite party. 10. It is well settled that the compromise decree is nothing but a contract entered into by and between the parties making reciprocal promises which derives sanctity by the Court supporting its seal to the contract. In order to hold a person guilty of civil contempt, it must be proved that there is deliberate disregard and violation of direction/order or the undertaking given to the Court. In order to hold a person guilty of civil contempt, it must be proved that there is deliberate disregard and violation of direction/order or the undertaking given to the Court. For better appreciation, Section 2 (b) of the Act, which defines civil contempt, may gainfully be quoted, which runs as under : "2. Definitions.............. (b) "civil contempt" means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a Court." 11. From reading of the definition of the civil contempt it is manifest that it involves the existence and proof of certain conditions before a person can be held to have committed civil contempt. There must be judgment or order or decree or direction or writ or other process of Court or an undertaking given to a Court and there must be a disobedience of such judgment etc. or breach of such undertaking and lastly the disobedience or breach must be wilful. Coming back to the instant case, I find that in the compromise petition it was very categorically and specifically provided that in case of any obstruction in the vacation of Shop No. B, the opposite party-Company will allot another shop in some other market complex within the TELCO area. From perusal of the show cause it appears that it has been stated by the Company that Shop No. B at new market which was in occupation of the Jamshedpur Co-operative Stores Ltd. could not be vacated within the stipulated time and at the same time the representative of the petitioner could not contact the Company not gave any address for necessary correspondence. The opposite party as per their promise allotted Shop No. 26 at New Sector Market in terms of allotment letter dated 18.11.1997, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure A to the show cause. This statement made in the show cause has not been denied or disputed by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, even if the assurance given to the petitioner is taken as an undertaking given by the Company to the Court, there is neither any disobedience nor is there any wilful disregard of the said assurance and/or undertaking and, therefore, it will not amount to civil contempt. 12. In that view of the matter, even if the assurance given to the petitioner is taken as an undertaking given by the Company to the Court, there is neither any disobedience nor is there any wilful disregard of the said assurance and/or undertaking and, therefore, it will not amount to civil contempt. 12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, no case of civil contempt has been made out by the petitioner and, therefore, the instant case cannot proceed any further, which is accordingly dropped. Before parting with this order, I must observe that the opposite party-Company should handover possession of the allotted Shop No. 26 at New Sector Market to the petitioner at an earliest.