Summary
The Supreme Court restored the direction requiring a civil-suit defendant to deposit his passport after repeated unfulfilled undertakings in contempt proceedings. Deposit to ensure presence and progress of the proceedings was distinguished from impounding a passport. Despite allowing the appeal, the Court declined to restore the separately disposed contempt petition and instead required expeditious completion of the long-pending property suit, without deciding the disputed title.
Issues
- Whether the Single Judge could require passport deposit to secure presence after repeated breaches of undertakings.
- Whether the disposed contempt petition should be restored.
Held
- A party giving undertakings to the Court was required to honour them. Following repeated non-compliance, appropriate orders to secure presence in contempt proceedings could include surrender of the passport. The Single Judge did not exceed jurisdiction in making that direction on these facts. (¶¶ 24, 25)
- The direction required deposit with the Court to ensure presence and compliance, rather than impounding the passport. The Division Bench erred in setting it aside; deposit was also warranted to secure the defendant’s availability and progress of the trial. (¶¶ 25, 26, 28)
- The property-title dispute required determination after oral and documentary evidence in the suit. Given its age and the time already spent on interim and contempt issues, the Court declined restoration of the disposed contempt petition and focused on early trial completion. (¶¶ 23, 27)
Result
Appeal allowed; Division Bench order set aside and Single Judge’s passport-deposit direction confirmed. Restoration of the contempt petition declined. Trial to continue and suit to be decided expeditiously, preferably within nine months. No costs.