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 numberright to get the said documents.
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.
It is also an admitted fact that Sharda Bai expired on 02.06.2004.
As the matter was taken up seriously by the Court companycerned, reference was made for initiating companytempt proceedings against the appellant as the documents were number 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 companyclusion that the appellant was guilty of companytempt of companyrt and therefore, the appellant has been punished.
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.
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.
The said documents, which were handed over to the appellant, were given by him to his mother, Late Sharda Bai.
When the appellant was asked to produce the said documents as per the undertaking given by him to the companyrt, the appellant had submitted before the companyrt 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 companysequent to that it was companylapsed as his house was built up of mud and companyered with asbestos sheets resulting most of their belongings were vanished.
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.
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.
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.
Thus, the said documents were neither with the appellant number were they available at that time.
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.
ANIL R. DAVE, J. 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 companytempt 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 numbere that the appellant has already undergone the sentence.
