S.P. Mehrotra, J.@mdashThe present Contempt Petition has been filed under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is, inter alia prayed that the Opposite Parties be punished for having committed contempt of this Court by allegedly committing breach of undertaking incorporated in the order dated 17.2.1993 passed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 540 of 1992, connected with Civil Revision No. 544 of 1992 (Annexure6 to the Contempt Petition).
2. The present Contempt Petition was filed on 15th April, 1993. On 16th April, 1993, this Court passed the following order:
"List this case on 23.4.1993. Learned Counsel for the applicant is directed to serve a copy of this petition on Shri Pradeep Kumar who in the meantime will obtain instructions from his client."
3. A perusal of the above order dated 16th April, 1993 shows that there was no direction for issuance of notice to the opposite parties on the contempt petition.
4. A perusal of the record including the ordersheet of the Contempt Petition shows that no order for issuance of notice to the opposite parties has so far been passed on the Contempt Petition.
5. Therefore, no notice has so far been issued to any of the opposite parties on the Contempt Petition.
6. 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 about 11 years since the filing of the Contempt Petition in the year 1993.
7. There is one more 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."
8. In the present case, the contempt is alleged to have been committed in the year 1993.
9. In view of the aforesaid provisions of section 20, it is not permissible for this Court to initiate any proceedings for contempt against the said opposite parties in the Contempt Petition, now after a lapse of about 11 years, since the alleged commission of contempt by the said opposite parties in the year 1993.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Contempt Petition is liable to be dismissed as having become, infructuous, and the same is accordingly dismissed as such.
