NEERAJ JAIN Vs. MOHD SALIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Court has heard counsel for the contemners at length. Four arguments were advanced.

(2.) All these are technical pleas. On behalf of the contemners. no precise explanation was coming as to why the contempt proceedings must fail on the point of limitation. Firstly, it was attempted to be explained that it was beyond one year from the alleged incident and secondly, it was considered for judgment one year after the application had been filed and that an issue of notice is not application of mind for initiation of contempt proceedings. These arguments are misconceived.

(3.) The alleged incident on which the contempt action has been complained of is of 7th September, 1990. The contempt petition was filed on 11th October, 1990 ; well within time. The contempt petition was brought into Court with the Stamp Reporter certifying that the limitation was available until 7 September. 1991. In so far as the other aspects are concerned that an issue of notice on a contempt petition is not initiation of proceedings as the order of the Court to the effect "issue notice" or "notice to motion" is not an application of mind is an absurd plea. All over the nation when causes are presented, after the matter has been examined. Courts Invariably use the expression "issue notice" or "notice of motion". There is an assumption in a public justice system that notice has been issued on a matter presented before the Judge after the cause has been examined by the Court. Once the Court, on a presentation, before the Judge. passes an order that notices be issued to the opposite parties, the law enjoins that the matter has seen the examination of the Court and. thus, parties have been given an opportunity to file their reply to the petition or the plaint. The Court is not impressed by this argument on behalf of the contemners.