GYANI CHAND Vs. STATE OF A.P.

Supreme Court of India (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 5728 of 2005, Judgment Date: Sep 20, 2016

                                                              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 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 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.


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 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  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  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.


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.