JUDGMENT 1. - This contempt petition is directed against the breach of undertaking given by the respondent contemnor Nand Kumar before this court on 8.8.2007 while deciding the Writ Petition No. 4731/2007 (Nand Kumar v. ADJ No. 2, Bikaner) . The said respondent had prayed for one year's time to vacate the suit premises in question and to handover to the plaintiff petitioner - L.Rs of Ram Dutt Bhati. He had further given undertaking that he would not transfer the possession of suit premises to anybody else and also undertook to pay entire decretal sum including the arrears of rent and pay continuously monthly mesne profits on month to month basis. 2. The petitioner decree holder has filed this contempt petition on the ground that despite lapse of aforesaid period of one year on 8/8/2008, the respondent has not handed over the vacant and peaceful possession of the premises to the plaintiff petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once having given the undertaking, the respondent and his brother Hemant Kumar are making all sorts of excuses one upon another & not to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff petitioner. The undertaking given before the learned trial court in pursuance of the orders of this Court dated 8/8/2007 is Annex.2 on record. In the said undertaking, the said respondent Nand Kumar reiterated that he would handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the decree holder and will not transfer the possession of suit property to anybody else. However, on 18/8/2008 vide Annex.3, after one year was over, the said respondent Nand Kumar submitted an application before the learned Executing Court that the possession of the disputed premises is with Hemant Kumar son of Dev Dutt - his real brother, therefore, he cannot handover the possession of the suit premises before the stipulated date to the decree holder. With these documents in the present contempt petition, this Court took cognizance and issued notices to respondent on 15/10/2008. Thereafter, on 26/10/2009 again time was granted to the respondent to file reply to the contempt petition. On 11.11.2009, taking note of Annex.3, this Court also took cognizance against brother of Nand Kumar, Mr. Hemant Kumar and bailable warrants were issued for securing the presence of both the respondents Nand Kumar and Hemant Kumar. Thereafter, on 26/10/2009 again time was granted to the respondent to file reply to the contempt petition. On 11.11.2009, taking note of Annex.3, this Court also took cognizance against brother of Nand Kumar, Mr. Hemant Kumar and bailable warrants were issued for securing the presence of both the respondents Nand Kumar and Hemant Kumar. Since on 14/12/2009 no one was present on behalf of the respondent contemnors despite bailable warrants having been issued by this Court, arrest warrant was issued to secure their presence on the next date i.e. 5/1/2010. 4. On 5/1/2010, both the respondent contemn-ors were present before this Court and they prayed for three days time to file reply to the contempt petition, which was allowed and they were granted bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5000/- each to the satisfaction of learned Deputy Registrar (Judl.). Thereafter, under the directions of this Court on various dates 11/1/2010, 21/1/2010 and 28/1/2010, the respondent contemn ors remained present in the Court and the matter was directed to be placed today. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nand Kumar in the presence of both the respondent contemn-ors submitted that in the suit itself the suit premises specified in para no.2 of the plaint, copy of which is Annex. R/2, is one room, three latrines and one bath room and respondent contemn-or Nand Kumar is ready and willing to handover the vacant possession of the constructed portion as aforesaid to the decree holder immediately, however, learned counsel for the Nand Kumar expressed his inability to handover the vacant possession of the remaining plot of land to the plaintiff decree holder. But learned counsel Mr. M.S. Purohit appearing for the respondent contemn-or Hemant Kumar urged that he was not party to the suit and his objections before the learned Executing Court are pending consideration and he is not bound by the undertaking given by his brother Nand Kumar before this Court. Mr. Purohit also raised question of limitation under the contempt law under Section 20 of the Act that after expiry of year on 18/8/2008 no contempt action can be taken against his client Mr. Hemant Kumar. 6. Mr. Mr. Purohit also raised question of limitation under the contempt law under Section 20 of the Act that after expiry of year on 18/8/2008 no contempt action can be taken against his client Mr. Hemant Kumar. 6. Mr. Vinod Bhadu, learned counsel for the plaintiff petitioner urged that respondent contemn ors are trying to frustrate the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff petitioner and by trying to confuse the description of the suit premises, they want to wriggle out of the undertaking given before this Court. He drew the attention of this Court towards the notarized rent note dated 20/8/88 executed by the respondent contemnor Nand Kumar in favour of Ram Dutt, legal representatives of whom are before this Court as petitioners and a mention of the said rent note is also found in the impugned judgment and decree of learned trial court in para no.4 (Annex.R/2). A bare perusal of the said rent note clearly shows that Nand Kumar had taken on rent the `Bada' (a plot of land) ad measuring 68.6 ft. on eastern side, 99.6 ft. on western side, 85 ft on northern side and 88 ft on southern side, total measuring 7266 sq. ft. or 1816½ sq. yards on which one room, three latrines and one bathroom are constructed for 11 months on 1/7/1988 from said Shri Ram Dutt Bhati. 7. Irrespective of pendency of execution proceedings before the learned court below, the stand of respondents before this Court in this contempt petition shows that they are trying to flout, by-pass and undo the judgment of this Court dated 8/8/2007 which was rendered upon the solemn undertaking of respondent no.1 Nand Kumar before this Court on 8/8/2007 in which he not only undertook to give vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the decree holder but also undertook not to handover the possession of the suit premises to anybody else. Now taking a stand vide Annex.3 that his brother Hemant Kumar is in possession, therefore, he cannot handover the vacant possession of the suit premises to the decree holder is nothing but a futile effort on his part to undo the said undertaking and judgment of this Court which is viewed seriously by this Court. The stand taken by his brother Hemant Kumar is equally untenable. The stand taken by his brother Hemant Kumar is equally untenable. He may not have be a party to the suit or the undertaking given before this Court or under the directions of this Court before the learned trial court, but nonetheless the fact remains that Hemant Kumar, the real brother of the judgment debtor has been put in possession by his brother Nand Kumar only. He was unable to show any document before this Court indicating or establishing his independent right, title or interest over the said portion of land. The alleged objections filed by him before the learned Executing Court on the basis of power connection in his name etc. are of no consequence. This appears to be a device evolved by these two brothers to over reach the judgment of this Court and try to undo the judgment and undertaking given to this Court. Such cantankerous and disrespectful contemn-ors deserve to be strongly dealt with by this Court. The Court specifically put question through counsel appearing for the contemnors giving them three days time to handover the vacant possession of the suit premises of 1816½ sq.yards in question and the constructed portion thereof to the plaintiff petitioner, but the respondent no.2 Hemant Kumar through his counsel expressed his inability to do so. Nand Kumar also expressed his inability to handover the vacant possession of entire suit premises to the petitioners. 8. Consequently, this Court is constrained to hold that both the respondents are guilty of committing deliberate and wilful contempt of this Court of judgment dated 8/8/2007 of the undertaking given by respondent Nand Kumar before the trial court in pursuance of solemn undertaking given before this Court. 9. As far as question of imposition of sentence of imprisonment and/or fine is concerned, this Court would still like to give them three days time to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the decree holder & thereafter consider the aspect of sentence to be imposed upon them. 10. Accordingly, it is directed that if the respondent contemn-ors Nand Kumar and Hemant Kumar do not handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the entire suit premises namely plot of land measuring 1816½ sq. 10. Accordingly, it is directed that if the respondent contemn-ors Nand Kumar and Hemant Kumar do not handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the entire suit premises namely plot of land measuring 1816½ sq. yards and constructed portion thereof as stated above to the decree holder on or before 12.00 pm on 25/2/2010, they may be arrested by the Superintendent of Police, Bikaner immediately and shall be produced before this Court on 26/2/2010 at 10.30 am. 11. Put up on 26/2/2010 positively. 12. Copy of this order be sent to Superintendent of Police, Bikaner forthwith.Petition Disposed of As Above. *******