TOTA RAM ARYA Vs. VEENA GUPTA AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Mr. Tota Ram Arya has filed this contempt petition ostensibly on the ground that the judgment dated 03.02.2012 has not been complied with by the respondents-contemnors.

(2.) Section 20 of the Contempt of Court Act clearly stipulates as under:-

(3.) Since, the petitioner's contention is that the judgment dated 3.2.2012 has not been implemented and since, the petition has been filed on 9.9.2013, obviously the petition is beyond period of one year. Therefore, this Court has asked Mr. M.S. Raghav, the learned counsel for the petitioner, to explain as to how the contempt petition is maintainable when it is hit by limitation To this query, the learned counsel for the petitioner has pleaded that immediately after the judgment dated 3.2.2012 was passed, the petitioner has submitted a representation on 21.2.2012. However, the respondents/contemnors have sat quietly over the entire issue. Thus, even on 29.1.2013, he had sent a reminder to the respondents-contemnors with regard to the representation dated 21.2.2012. But, even after the reminder dated 29.1.2013, the respondents-contemnors have not implemented the judgment dated 3.2.2012. Hence, the learned counsel pleads that by submission of the representation and by sending of reminder thereto, the period of limitation has been extended. Hence, the present petition is well within time. He has further contended that since, the petition has been filed not only under Section 10 and 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, but has also been filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the period of limitation prescribed by Section 20 is inapplicable to Article 215 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this petition is well within time. Therefore, the petition is clearly maintainable according to the learned counsel for the petitioner.