G.L. Chopra, J.
1. This is a rule issued under Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
2. Badri Dass, Petitioner, had filed a suit for a sum of Rs. 2,000/-/- against Lakhoo Mal, the defendant-respondent. Along with the plaint Badri Dass presented an application under Order 38, Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code, for interim attachment of a shop belonging to the defendant. Notice in the suit as well as of the application was issued. Lakhoo Mal appeared on 14th April, 1958, and made a statement accepting the plaintiffs claim. According to the statement, the suit amount was to be paid in certain instalments the first one of Rs. 150/- to be paid in Namani 2015 Bk. The defendant further stated that he undertook not to alienate any part of his immovable property till the entire amount was paid as agreed upon by the parties. The suit was decreed in the terms set out in the statement. Lakhoo Mal is then said to have alienated the shop, which was sought to be attached, on 25th April, 1958. The present application is presented on the ground of a breach of the undertaking.
3. The statement of the defendant read as a whole leaves no doubt in my mind that it was based upon a private compromise arrived at between the parties outside the Court. Instead of presenting a written composition deed the defendant detailed the terms of the compromise in his statement and a decree on the basis of it was passed. The undertaking was thus not given to the Court but to the plaintiff. It was no more than a solemn promise by the defendant to the plaintiff and the nature of that promise or undertaking could never be changed by reason of the compromise being accepted by the Court and a decree passed in its terms. The principle is well settled that the breach of such an undertaking or promise does not amount to contempt of Court, (Vide Sivagami Ammal v. Muthu Iyer, AIR 1948 Cal 294, Bukhtiarpur Bihar Light Rly. Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar AIR 1951 Pat 231).
4. The petition is dismissed and the rule discharged. No order as to costs.