Strict construction of recorded undertakings prevented continued stay of eviction after the specific performance suit was decided.

An undertaking recorded in a consent order was construed strictly and by reference to the operative part of the earlier order, so it restrained execution of the eviction decree only until the decision of the specific performance suit and not until every further stage of challenge had ended. Judicial orders and recorded undertakings were held not to be read like statutes, and the doctrine of merger or the notion that an appeal continues the suit could not enlarge the undertaking's scope. Because the claim based on part performance had already been negatived, the occupants could not continue resisting eviction merely because the separate suit had proceeded further. The undertaking therefore did not bar execution, and the stay could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the undertaking recorded in the consent order restrained execution of the eviction decree only until the decision of the suit for specific performance at the stage when that suit ceased to be pending, and whether the High Court was right in continuing the stay on the footing that the suit had not attained final finality.

Analysis: The undertaking had to be read with the operative part of the earlier order and in its setting. It restrained execution only till the decision of the specific performance suit and not until every possible stage of challenge had ended. Judicial orders and recorded undertakings are not to be construed as statutes, and the expression used in the order could not be expanded by importing the doctrine of merger or by treating the appeal as a continuation of the suit. An undertaking of this nature must be construed strictly and in favour of the person giving it. The respondents' claim to resist eviction on the basis of part performance had already been negatived, and their possession could not be protected merely because the separate suit had undergone further proceedings.

Conclusion: The undertaking did not survive so as to bar execution of the eviction decree, and the order of the High Court could not be sustained.

---