ORDER S.P. Mehrotra, J.
1. The present Contempt Petition purporting to be under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been filed by the petitioner-applicant, inter-alia, praying that the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 be drawn against the opposite parties, and the opposite parties be punished as per law.
2. The present Contempt Petition was filed on 21-1-1994.
3. By the order dated 24-1-1994, the Court directed the case to be "put up tomorrow".
4. The said order dated 24-1-1994 is quoted below :--
"As prayed, put up tomorrow".
5. A perusal of the order-sheet shows that the case was, thereafter, put up before the Court on a few dates, but no order was passed on the said dates.
6. On 6th May, 2004, the case was listed before the Court with the Office Report dated 1-4-2004/4-5-2004. On the said date i.e. 6-5-2004, the Court passed the following order :--
"List again showing the name of Sri. H.M. Srivastava also as the learned counsel for the petitioner applicant".
7. Pursuant to the said order dated 6-5-2004, the case was listed before the Court on 13-5-2004 with the Office Report dated 12-5-2004.
8. The said Office Report dated 12-5-2004 is as follows :--
"Pursuant to Court's order dated 6-5-2004. The case is put up for orders with showing the name of Sri H.M. Srivastava as Counsel for the O.P."
9. On 13-5-2004, the Court passed the following order :--
"On prayer made by Sri S.N. Sharma, holding brief for Sri H.M. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner applicant, the case is passed over.
List in the next cause list".
10. Pursuant to the said order dated 13-5-2004, the case is listed today with the Office Report dated 19-5-2004/26-5-2004/ 7-7-2004.
11. A perusal of the record including the order-sheet of the Contempt Petition shows that no order has so far been passed on the Contempt Petition directing for issuance of notice to the opposite parties.
12. As such, no notice has so far been issued to any of the opposite parties on the Contempt Petition.
13. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by directing for issuance of notices to the opposite parties now after a lapse of more than 10 years since the filing of the Contempt Petition in January, 1994.
14. There is yet another aspect of the matter. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 provides as follows :--
"20. Limitation for actions for contempt.-- No Court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed."
15. In the present case, as per the averments made in the paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 of the affidavit accompanying the Contempt Petition, the contempt is alleged to have been committed by the opposite parties on 3-1-1994.
16. Keeping in view of the aforesaid provisions of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, there is no occasion to direct for Issuance of notices to the opposite parties now after a lapse of about 10 years, since the alleged commission of contempt by the opposite parties in January 1994.
17. No peculiar circumstances have been brought to the notice of this Court persuading it to direct for issuance of notices on the Contempt Petition to the opposite parties at such a late stage.
18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the Contempt Petition is liable to be dismissed as having become infructuous.
19. The Contempt Petition is accordingly dismissed as having become infructuous.