Civil contempt requires wilful disobedience, and impossible compliance cannot create liability when documents were destroyed in a flood.

Civil contempt under Section 2(b) requires wilful disobedience of a court order or wilful breach of an undertaking. On the admitted facts, the documents had been handed to the appellant's mother, the rightful owner, and were later destroyed in a flood, so there was no intention to disobey and compliance had become impossible. A direction to perform an impossible act cannot found contempt liability. The appellant was therefore not guilty of contempt, and the High Court's order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's failure to produce the documents amounted to civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Analysis: Civil contempt requires wilful disobedience of a court order or wilful breach of an undertaking given to the court. On the admitted facts, the documents had been handed over to the appellant's mother, who was the rightful owner, and they were later destroyed in a flood. The appellant therefore lacked any intention to disobey the undertaking, and compliance had become impossible. A direction to do an impossible act cannot found contempt liability.

Conclusion: The appellant was not guilty of contempt of court and the High Court's order was set aside.

---