No contempt of Court for direction to do something impossible. The Supreme Court deplores High Court in holding appellant guilty and imposing sentence.

No contempt of Court for direction to do something impossible. The Supreme Court deplores High Court in holding appellant guilty and imposing sentence.

contempt of Court for direction to do something impossible

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
1019 (2016) (09) SC

Brief Facts of the Case:
In the instant case, the appellant was held guilty of contempt of Court by the High Court and had been sentenced to simple imprisonment for one week along with a fine of Rs.2,000/-. The appellant had already undergone the sentence imposed.

The appellant, in a case before City Civil Court (Trial Court), had given an undertaking to produce certain documents whenever directed. In the said case before the Trial Court, the mother of the appellant, was a litigant 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. The appellant had made an application to the Court for return of the documents, produced by his mother. While returning the documents, the appellant was asked by the Trial Court to give an undertaking that the said documents would be produced by him as and when the same would be required by the Court. The said documents, which were handed over to the appellant, were given by him to his mother.

The said documents were required in another case pending in the Civil Court. The mother of the appellant, in 2001, by an affidavit, admitted the fact that the said documents were given to her by her son. However she stated in the said affidavit that the appellant in the said proceedings at the Civil Court had no right to get the said documents. 

The mother of the appellant of the present case however expired on in 2004.

When the appellant in this case was asked by the Civil Court to produce the said documents as per the undertaking given by him , the appellant submitted that he had already handed over the said documents to his mother who expired in 2004. He 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.

In other words,  according to the appellant, it was impossible for him to return the documents which were handed over to him as the said documents were in turn handed over by him to his mother who was the rightful owner of the documents and subsequently the documents were destroyed.

However, the Civil Court made a reference 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 the High Court held the appellant as guilty of contempt of court and was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one week along with a fine of Rs.2,000/-.

Observations made by the Supreme Court:
A division Bench of the Apex Court heard the matter and made the following observations.

The Supreme Court observed that it was an admitted fact that the documents had been handed over by the appellant to his mother, 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.

The Apex Court observed that a perusal of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 , makes it 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.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that on the facts of the case,  it was 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.

The Apex Court opined that after knowing the facts of the case, the Civil 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.

According to the Supreme Court it was deplorable that the appellant had been held guilty and had also undergone the sentence imposed by the High Court.

Held:
It was held that the appellant was not guilty of committing contempt of court as there was no willful breach of the undertaking given to the court.

contempt of Court for direction to do something impossible

Download Full Judgment

----------- Similar Posts: -----------

Leave a Reply