ROMESH KUMAR Vs. BHAGWAN DASS AHUJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS contempt petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act has been filed on the basis that the Respondent has violated the undertaking given by him in this Court in C.R. No. 1467 of 1982 which was decided on 11th May, 1983. The copy of the said order has been filed as Annexure P.5. Therein the Respondent has given an undertaking that the property which was attached would not be alienated by him till the decretal amount is recovered. It has been alleged in the petition that in spite of that (Undertaking the car which was attached was sold by the Respondent on 7th August, 1983 and thus the Respondent has violated the said undertaking and was therefore liable for contempt of court. In the reply on behalf of the Respondent a preliminary objection has been raised that the petition for contempt was barred by time as it was filed after more than one year from the act of contempt alleged to have been committed by the Respondent and was therefore barred under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Admittedly, the contempt petition was filed on 8th April, 1985 which is more than 1 year from the date i.e. 7th August, 1983 when the undertaking is said to have been violated.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the period of one year will run from the time when it has come to the notice of the Petitioner and the same was brought to the notice of this Court. Once it is brought to the notice of this Court then it is for this Court to take proceedings within one year thereof. In support of his contention he referred to Sudesh Kumar v. Jai Narain and Anr., 1974 PLR 23 Baradakanta Mishra v. Mr. Justice Gatikrushna Misra, C.J. of the Orissa H.C. : AIR 1974 S.C. 2255. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the period of one year runs from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed and therefore the petition was clearly barred by time when it was filed on 8th April, 1985 as the act of contempt is said to have been committed on 7th August, 1983. According to the learned Counsel, Limitation Act as such does not apply to these proceedings and therefore the question of extending the time, therefore, does not arise. In support of his contention he cited N. Venkataramanappa v. D.K. Naikar and Anr., AIR 1978 Karn 57 and Gulab Singh and Anr. v. The Principal Sri Ranji Dass : AIR 1975 All 366.

(3.) IN this view of the matter, the petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.