ORDER : A.S. SUPEHIA, J. 1. The present application emanates from the order dated 07.04.2017 passed by this Court in Appeal from Order No.228 of 2016. 2. Learned advocate Mr.Kapadia appearing for the applicants at the outset, has submitted that despite the statement having been made on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 by learned advocate Mr.Utpal Panchal not to sell the property and not to create any right, title and interest on the property, two sale-deeds have been executed; (i) Sale Deed No.5061 dated 23.06.2020 for the first part of the property in favour of the respondent Nos.5 and 6 and (ii) Sale Deed No.5062 on the very same day for the second part of the property in favour of the respondent Nos.7 to 11. 3. Learned advocate Mr.Kapadia has further submitted that further fraud has been committed by the respondent Nos.1 to 4, while filing the affidavit dated 11.07.2021. It is submitted that, vital fact of executing another Sale Deed for the another half of the property has been suppressed by the respondent Nos.1 to 4. It is submitted that the Sale Deed is executed in contravention of the undertaking dated 07.04.2017 made before this Court and the appellants were not aware about the execution of the Sale Deeds as no entry was made in the Records of Rights and they came to know of the said fact only on 15.12.2022 i.e. on the day of cross-examination of the complainant - Vinodbhai Dinkarrai Desai and during his cross-examination, the defendant revealed that the Sale Deed is executed for remaining part of the suit property. Thus, it is submitted that the respondents have committed aggravated form of contempt and hence, they may be punished accordingly. 4. Opposing the aforesaid submissions advanced by learned advocate Mr.Kapadia, learned advocate Mr.Shah appearing for the respondents has submitted that the present contempt proceedings are not maintainable and the applicants have remedy under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), as the order has been passed in the Appeal from Order before the High Court. 4. Opposing the aforesaid submissions advanced by learned advocate Mr.Kapadia, learned advocate Mr.Shah appearing for the respondents has submitted that the present contempt proceedings are not maintainable and the applicants have remedy under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), as the order has been passed in the Appeal from Order before the High Court. Secondly, it is submitted that the respondent Nos.1 to 4 were not aware about the statement made by learned advocate Mr.Utpal Panchal, who was representing them and they had no occasion to meet the learned advocate and hence, they are not bound by the statement made by him on their behalf before this Court in the proceedings of Appeal from Order. It is submitted that the applicants herein have also not informed the trial Court about the aforesaid order for 2 years. It is further submitted that in the affidavits filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 4, they have categorically stated that since they were in dire need of money during the COVID-19 pandemic and due to bona fide mistake that there was no restraining order from this Court, have decided to sell the land to respondent Nos.5 and 6 and the Sale Deed was executed on 23.06.2020. It is submitted that there is no willful disobedience and not even least intention to commit breach of the order of this Court. He has also submitted that as per the contents of the affidavit, they may be pardoned and they will abide by any further direction that may be passed by this Court in the interest of justice. 5. Learned advocate Mr.Shah, while pointing out the directions issued in the order dated 07.04.2017 in Appeal from Order No.228 of 2016 has submitted that in fact, no directions are issued by the learned Single Judge restraining the present respondent Nos.1 to 4 in any manner and they are only confined to the proceedings of Special Civil Suit No.608 of 2011 and Special Civil Suit No.291 of 2012 and thus, it is urged that the contempt application may not be entertained. 6. While placing reliance on the affidavit filed by the respondent Nos.5 and 6, it is submitted by learned advocate Mr.Shah that the said respondents may be pardoned and sincere and unconditional apology may also be accepted as there is no willful disobedience. 6. While placing reliance on the affidavit filed by the respondent Nos.5 and 6, it is submitted by learned advocate Mr.Shah that the said respondents may be pardoned and sincere and unconditional apology may also be accepted as there is no willful disobedience. It is submitted that they have paid the Stamp Duty, while executing the Sale Deed and the same will be jeopardize, if other proceedings are undertaken by this Court. It is also submitted that they are ready to undertake to abide by any further direction(s) that may be passed by this Court. 7. Learned advocate Mr.Shah has also submitted that the undertaking is already filed by the respondents before this Court that they are ready to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the complainant, if decree is passed in Special Civil Suit No.608 of 2011 in favour of the complainant subject to right to file an appeal. It is also submitted that the original Sale Deeds are deposited before the trial Court. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Niaz Mohammed Vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 6 S.C.C. 332 . It is thus, submitted that there is no willful disobedience of the directions issued by this Court and hence, the contempt proceedings may be dropped. 8. While placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Himalayan Cooperative Group Housing Society Vs. Balwan Singh, (2015) 7 S.C.C. 373 , it is submitted by learned advocate Mr.Shah that the respondent Nos.1 to 4 are not bound by the statement made by learned advocate Mr.Utpal Panchal. Finally, it is submitted that the respondents are ready and willing to cancel the Sale Deeds and hence, no further proceedings in the present application may be continued. 9. We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. 10. The present application has been filed for initiation of contempt proceedings in view of the order dated 07.04.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Appeal from Order No.228 of 2016. 9. We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. 10. The present application has been filed for initiation of contempt proceedings in view of the order dated 07.04.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Appeal from Order No.228 of 2016. The present applicants are the original plaintiffs, who have instituted Special Civil Suit No.608 of 2011 before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Surat, containing inter alia that they are the agriculturists and doing agricultural activities and the said suit pertains to the agreement to sell, which was executed on 27.10.1987 and the said suit is still pending. It appears that during pendency of the said suit, Appeal From Order No.228 of 2016 has been filed by the deceased - Dinkarrai Desai and the present applicants are his legal heirs. By the order dated 07.04.2017, the Appeal from Order has been disposed of by observing thus: “1. Mr.P.C.Kavina, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. Viral K. Salot, learned advocate appearing for the Appellants, would submit that during pendency of the Special Civil Suit No. 608 of 2011 pending in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge at Surat, the possession of the property was taken away by the present respondents and therefore, the appellants had to file the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act being Special Civil Suit No. 291 of 2012 pending in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, at Surat. In both the suits, the witnesses are being examined by the respective parties. He would further submit that if both the suits being Special Civil Application No. 608 of 2011 and Special Civil Suit No. 291 of 2012 are consolidated, it would be in the interest of the parties. 2. M. Utpal Panchal, learned advocate for the s, states that during pendency of the suit, the respondents – original defendants do not intend to sell the property and shall not create any right, title and interest over the property or shall not hand over the possession of the dispute property to any third person. 3. In view of the above statement made by Mr. Utpal Panchal, learned advocate for the respondents, I am of the opinion that the following order would meet the end of justice. 3. In view of the above statement made by Mr. Utpal Panchal, learned advocate for the respondents, I am of the opinion that the following order would meet the end of justice. [i] Special Civil Application No. 608 of 2011 and Special Civil Application No. 291 of 2012 are hereby ordered to be consolidated and to be heard together. The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Surat shall pass appropriate order with regard to transfer one of the suit to the court having proceeding of another suit being Special Civil Application No. 608 of 2011. [ii] It is expected that the trial Court shall expedite the hearing of the suit and shall complete the same as early as possible. 4. In view of the above, the present Appeal From Order stands disposed of. Notice is discharged. 5. IT is hereby made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case. 6. Direct service is permitted.” 11. We may first deal with the contentions raised before us that since there was no order passed by the learned Single Judge restraining the respondents from further changing the status of suit property, they intended to sell it and thus, they have not committed any contempt. The aforesaid statement is not only misleading but is not made in a good perception before this Court. The learned Single Judge, by placing reliance on the statement made by learned advocate Mr.Utpal Panchal appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and believing such statement bona fidely, has issued the directions, as mentioned in paragraph No.3 of the order dated 07.04.2017. There was no further directions required to clarify the aforesaid statement since learned advocate Mr.Utpal Panchal, who appeared for respondent Nos.1 to 4 had categorically made a statement that during pendency of the suit, the respondents-original defendants do not intend to sell the property and would not create any right, title and interest over the property or would not handover the possession of the disputed property to any third person. 12. It is not the case of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 that they had not engaged learned advocate Mr.Utpal Panchal for representing their case before this Court in Appeal from Order proceedings. 12. It is not the case of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 that they had not engaged learned advocate Mr.Utpal Panchal for representing their case before this Court in Appeal from Order proceedings. It is also not coming on record that any complaint before the Bar Council has been filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 4 alleging that the statement made by learned advocate Mr.Utpal Panchal on their behalf is misleading and without their consultation. For the first time, after issuance of notice in the contempt proceedings, the averment has been made that learned advocate Mr.Utpal Panchal was not having in contact with respondent Nos.1 to 4 and hence, when he made a statement before this Court, he might have taken sense of their local advocate and did not contact the respondent Nos.1 to 4, before making the statement. If that was the case, it was expected from the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to file appropriate complaint against learned advocate Mr.Utpal Panchal however, a statement has been made very vaguely in order to escape from the contempt proceedings. 13. At this stage, we may refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari Vs. Hiralal Somabhai Contractor and Ors., AIR 2023 SC 4390 in context of the statement made by the learned advocates appearing on behalf of their clients before the Court of law. The Apex Court in an identical situation has held thus: “69. Thus, the expression a party “undertakes” or “gives a solemn promise” or “it is stated at the Bar on instructions from clients that the property shall not be sold” used in the statements of the parties or their counsel or in the orders and decrees of the court, unless the context otherwise suggests, means an implied undertaking to the court. The undertaking is always understood to be an undertaking to the court, which undertaking could be enforced by committal proceedings. 70. *** *** *** 71. Having regard to the principles of law as aforestated, it will be too much for this Court to say that the statement made by the learned Senior Counsel before the High Court was just an assurance given to a party to the lis and was not an undertaking given to the court so as to entail the consequences of “civil contempt”. 72. 72. It is true that every undertaking given by a party to a litigation may not be an undertaking to the court; there is a difference between an undertaking given to the other party and an undertaking given to the court. The breach of an undertaking given to the other party may not constitute the contempt of court. However, whether a particular undertaking is an undertaking to the court or to the opposite party must depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and the language used. In the case on hand, it is not the case of the appellants that they had negotiated a settlement with the other side outside the court and reported the same to the High Court and the High Court proceeded to pass the order incorporating the undertaking given by the learned counsel upon instructions from the clients. Even if the parties, had negotiated a settlement outside the court and reported the same to the court and the court would have passed an order, in terms of such understanding, there would be no scope to warrant that the undertaking was not given to the court. 73. An undertaking or an assurance given by a lawyer based upon which the court decides upon a particular course of action would definitely fall within the confines of “undertaking” as stipulated under Section 2(b) of the Act 1971 and the breach of which would constitute “civil contempt”. As held in M.V. Home (supra) relied upon by this Court in Rama Narang (supra) that if a party or solicitor or counsel on his behalf, so as to convey to the court a firm conviction that an undertaking is being given, that party will be bound and it will be no answer that he did not think that he was giving it or that he was misunderstood. The breach of an undertaking given to a court by a person in a pending proceeding on the faith of which the court sanctions a particular course of action is misconduct amounting to contempt.” 14. The breach of an undertaking given to a court by a person in a pending proceeding on the faith of which the court sanctions a particular course of action is misconduct amounting to contempt.” 14. The Apex Court has specifically in such situation, where the statement is made by a lawyer has held that an undertaking or assurance given by a lawyer based, upon which the court decides upon a particular course of action would fall within the confines of “undertaking” as stipulated under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 and breach, of which would constitute further contempt. 15. In the present case, after such statement was made, the respondent Nos.1 to 4 entered into the Sale Deeds. The first Sale Deed No.5061 dated 23.06.2020 for the first part of the suit property and the second Sale Deed for the second part of the suit property was executed on the same day i.e. on 23.06.2020 being Sale Deed No.5062. Thus, in wake of the aforesaid undisputed facts, it was expected from the respondent Nos.1 to 4 at least to check the status of their matters i.e. Appeal from Order, which has been represented on their behalf by learned advocate Mr.Utpal Panchal. Instead of doing so, they have entered into two Sale Deeds. 16. At this stage, we have also noticed that the contempt is further aggravated by the respondent Nos.1 to 4 since in the affidavit, which was filed by the respondent No.3 on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 on 11.07.2021, they have not disclosed the fact about executing another Sale Deed of the second half of the suit property. This shows malice on the part of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to first execute a Sale Deed for the first half of the suit property in favour of the respondent Nos.5 and 6 and on the very same day, another Sale Deed is executed for other part of the suit property in favour of respondent Nos.7 to 11. 17. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari (supra) in similar fact, it is not necessary for the High Court to implead the purchaser in the contempt proceedings. Thus, the act of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 is in clear defiance of the statement made by learned advocate Mr.Utpal Panchal on their behalf in the proceedings of Appeal From Order. Thus, the act of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 is in clear defiance of the statement made by learned advocate Mr.Utpal Panchal on their behalf in the proceedings of Appeal From Order. 18. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, wisdom has, all of a sudden, dawned upon the respondents that they are ready and willing to file proceedings for cancellation of the Sale Deeds. These proceedings have been going-on since 2020 and four years have passed but no efforts are made by the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to cancel the proceedings. 19. The Apex Court in the aforesaid case, has confirmed the orders passed by this Court, whereby in the contempt proceedings, the Sale Deeds were cancelled, which were made in clear defiance of the undertaking before it. The respondent Nos.1 to 4 have also made the statement in their affidavits that they are ready and willing to abide by any further direction that may be passed by this Court in the interest of justice. 20. Thus, we find that the action of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 in executing two Sale Deeds is contemptuous. Hence, we are framing following charges against the respondent Nos.1 to 4. “Why you - the respondent Nos.1 to 4 should not be held guilty for contempt of Court, as defined under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and punished accordingly?” 21. As the respondent Nos.1 to 4 have already mentioned before us that they would abide by further orders, they shall also explain as to why the Sale Deeds cannot be cancelled by this Court, when it is assigned such power in light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari (supra). 22. The matter shall be listed for further hearing on 07.03.2025.