Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL  NO.  5728 OF  2005

GYANI CHAND               Appellant

                    VERSUS

STATE OF A.P.                               Respondent

J U D G M E N T

ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. Being  aggrieved  by  the  judgment  and  order  passed  in

Contempt Case No.58 of 2005 on 10.08.2005 by the High Court

of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, this appeal has been filed by

the appellant,  who has been held guilty of  contempt of Court

and has been sentenced to simple imprisonment for one week

1

Page 2

and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-.  It is pertinent to note that the

appellant has already undergone the sentence.

2. Undisputed facts giving rise to the present litigation in a

nutshell are as under:

The appellant had given an undertaking in I.A. No.11 of

1985 in O.S. No.231 of 1972 before the IXth Assistant Judge,

City  Civil  Court,  Hyderabad  that  he  would  “return  the

documents  on  an  undertaking  to  produce  them  whenever

directed”.  The mother of the appellant, Late Sharda Bai was a

litigant in the afore-stated case, which had been disposed of in

1981.  Some of the documents, which had been produced by the

mother of the appellant in the said case, were required by her

and as she was unable to remain present before the Court due

to  her  old  age,  she  had  requested  the  appellant  to  make  an

application  on  her  behalf,  for  return  of  the  documents  and,

accordingly, the appellant had made an application to the Court

for return of the documents, which had been produced by Late

Sharda Bai, the mother of the appellant.  While returning the

2

Page 3

documents, the appellant was asked to give an undertaking to

the Court that the said documents would be produced by him as

and when the same would be required by the Court.

3. The  said  documents,  which  were  handed  over  to  the

appellant,  were given by him to his mother, Late Sharda Bai.

The said documents were required in I.A. No.632 of 2001 in O.S.

No.231 of 1972, which was pending in the Court of IXth Junior

Civil  Judge,  Civil  Court  at  Hyderabad.  By  an  affidavit  dated

5.10.2001, Late Sharda Bai had admitted the fact that the said

documents  were  given  to  her  by  the  appellant  and  she  had

further stated in the said affidavit that the appellant in the said

proceedings had no right to get the said documents.  Thus, it is

an admitted fact that the present appellant had handed over the

said documents to his mother Late Sharda Bai, who had right to

retain the same as the documents were produced by her.   

4. It  is  also  an  admitted  fact  that  Sharda  Bai  expired  on

02.06.2004.

3

Page 4

5. When  the  appellant  was  asked  to  produce  the  said

documents as per the undertaking given by him to the court, the

appellant had submitted before the court that he had already

handed over the said documents to Late Sharda Bai, who had

expired on 02.06.2004 and he had further submitted that his

house was “badly hit by the cyclone in the year 1999, as a result

of  which  his  house  was  submerged  into  the  flood  water

consequent to that it was collapsed as his house was built up of

mud and covered with asbestos sheets resulting most of their

belongings  were  vanished”.   Thus,  the  said  documents  were

neither with the appellant nor were they available at that time.

According  to  the  appellant,  the  case  in  which  the  said

documents  were  required,  was  filed  by  the  relatives  of  the

appellant and they had filed an application for production of the

said  documents  to  pressurise  the  appellant  in  their  family

affairs.

6. Thus, it was the case of the appellant before the Court that

it was impossible for him to return the documents handed over

to him as the said documents were handed over by him to the

4

Page 5

rightful owner of the documents and the documents were also

destroyed.

7. As  the  matter  was  taken  up  seriously  by  the  Court

concerned,  reference  was  made  for  initiating  contempt

proceedings against  the appellant  as the documents were not

returned  as  per  the  undertaking  and  the  matter  was  placed

before the High Court and by virtue of the impugned order, the

High Court came to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty

of  contempt  of  court  and  therefore,  the  appellant  has  been

punished.  

8. Upon  hearing  the  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the

parties, we are of the view that there is no willful breach of the

undertaking given to the court by the appellant, for which he

can be held guilty of committing contempt of the Court.   

9. In  the  instant  case,  it  is  an  admitted  fact  that  the

documents  had  been  handed  over  by  the  appellant  to  his

mother, Late Sharda Bai, who was the rightful owner of the said

documents and the  said fact  was admitted by his  mother  by

5

Page 6

filing an affidavit in another legal proceedings. Subsequently, the

said documents had been destroyed because of  the flood and

therefore, it was impossible for the appellant to return the same

to the Court.

10. Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 reads as

under:

“2(b) “civil  contempt”  means  willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court;”

11. Upon perusal  of  the  above  mentioned  definition  of  “civil

contempt”, it is very clear that so as to hold somebody guilty of

contempt  of  court,  the  concerned person must  have  willfully

disobeyed any judgment,  decree,  direction,  order,  writ  or  any

other  process  of  a  court  or  should  have  willfully committed

breach of an undertaking given to a court.

12. In the instant case, from the facts stated hereinabove, it is

crystal clear that the appellant had no intention of committing

breach of the undertaking given to the court.  It was physically

6

Page 7

impossible for the appellant to produce the documents as the

documents had already been given by him to his  mother,  on

whose behalf he had collected the same from the court and the

said documents had been subsequently destroyed because of a

natural calamity.  In our opinion, after knowing the above stated

facts,  the  court  should  not  have  directed  the  appellant  to

produce  the  documents  because  it  was  impossible  for  the

appellant to produce the documents.  It would not be fair on the

part  of  a  court  to  give  a  direction  to  do  something  which  is

impossible  and  if  a  person  has  been  asked  to  do  something

which is impossible and if he fails to do so, he cannot be held

guilty of contempt.

13. It is deplorable that the appellant has been held guilty and

has also undergone the sentence imposed by the High Court.

We  hold  that  the  appellant  was  not  guilty  of  committing

contempt  of  court  as  there  was  no  willful  breach  of  the

undertaking given to the court.

7

Page 8

14. For the afore-stated reasons, we are not in agreement with

the judgment delivered by the High Court and therefore, we set

aside the same and allow the appeal with no order as to costs.

……….…............................J.              [ANIL R. DAVE]

.….....................................J.                                      [UDAY UMESH LALIT]

…......................................J.                                            [L. NAGESWARA RAO]                                                                                                 New Delhi, September 20, 2016.

8