NIRMALA JAIN Vs. G.S. BATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned senior counsel for the respondents. I have also gone through the record. The present contempt petition has been filed on account of the alleged wilful disobedience of the order dated 04.05.2004 which was confirmed on 22.11.2005. The order sheet dated 09.02.2011 when the notice came to be issued records the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners learnt about the wilful disobedience of the aforesaid orders for the first time on 23.02.2010. The allegation of the wilful disobedience was that though the respondents were directed to maintain the status quo with regard to the title as well as the possession of the property bearing No.40/72 Punjabi Bagh (West), New Delhi, but despite this restraint order they have sold the property. The submission on the basis of which the notice came to be issued is factually incorrect. There is no dispute about the fact that the period of limitation of one year is prescribed for taking cognizance of the contempt petitions under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which reads as under:

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner in his submission has stated that the petitioners learnt about the property in question being transacted in wilful disobedience of the order for the first time on 23.02.2010, is factually incorrect. The averments made by the petitioners themselves in para 35 to 41 belie this submission about the knowledge of the property being transacted and learnt for the first time in the month of August, 2010. The para Nos. 35 to 41 of the petition read as under:

(3.) A perusal of the aforesaid paras in the petition clearly shows that it is the petitioners' own case that they learnt about the property being transacted for the first time on 17.08.2007. If that was correct, then the contempt petition ought to have been filed latest by 16.08.2008 while it has been filed in the year 2011. Therefore, I find that the present contempt petition is hopelessly barred by limitation. As a matter of fact, the notice has come to be issued to the respondents on the basis of incorrect submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners in the court which are belied by the averments made in the petition.