Judgment :- This contempt petition has been filed, praying that this Court may be pleased to punish the respondent for contempt of court for wilful disobedience of the order, dated 27.08.2003, made in O.A.No.170 of 2003 in C.S.No.113 of 2003. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner firm is a partnership firm, which had filed a civil suit before this Court in C.S.No.113 of 2003 for the recovery of a sum of Rs.13,74,005/-from the respondent and for a permanent injunction restraining him from releasing the Tamil feature film "LESA LESA", without settling the plaintiffs dues. The petitioner had also filed an application in Application No.170 of 2003, seeking for an order of interim injunction restraining the second respondent therein from releasing any prints of the said film to the respondent or to any one claiming through him. The application was moved on 12. 2003 and this Court had ordered notice to the respondents returnable, on 19.02.2003. 3. The respondent having entered appearance through a counsel had submitted that he would settle the dues prior to the release of the film. Even though the dues were not settled the film was released. Thereafter, this Court had recorded a specific undertaking from the respondents counsel that a payment of Rs.1 lakh would be made every month by the respondent to the applicant. On such undertaking being given, the application was closed. Inspite of the undertaking no payment was made by the respondent to the applicant and therefore, a notice, dated 02.01.2004, had been issued. However, there was no response from the respondent. Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to file the present contempt petition to punish the respondent for wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court, on 27.08.2003 in O.A.NO.170 of 2003 in C.S.No.113 of 2003. 4. At the stage of hearing of the contempt petition, it was submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, on 27.08.2003, the entire principal amount had been paid by the respondent to the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had not refuted the claims made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 6. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had not refuted the claims made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 6. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to punish the respondent for contempt of Court, as prayed for by the petitioner in the contempt petition. Hence, the contempt petition stands closed.