IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP-1063-2026 Date of Decision: 10.03.2026 RAJESH BENIWAL AND ANR.

......Petitioners Vs.

SUMITA MISHRA, IAS AND OTHERS .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Raman B. Garg, Advocate with Mr. Mayank Garg, Advocate and for the petitioners.

Mr. Harish Nain, AAG, Haryana.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (Oral)

1. The present contempt petition has been filed under Section 10 read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for non- compliance of judgment dated 06.07.1994, whereby the following direction was issued:-

“For the reasons recorded above, this petition is allowed and orders passed by the settlement officer and Director Consolidation, Annexures P-4 and P-5 are quashed. A Direction is issued that the respondent-authorities would partition the joint khewat in accordance with the law and in view of the directions issued in C.W.P. Nos 1641 of 1960 and 1209 of 1969. Let directions issued in this order be complied within three months from today positively. Petition is allowed with costs which are quantified at Rs. 3000/-.”

2. A bare reading of above referred to direction shows that these were to be complied with within three months from 06.07.1994. The present contempt petition is filed after delay of about 32 years, whereas the limitation under Section 20 of Contempt of Counts Act, 1971, is one year.

Therefore, the present contempt petition is highly time barred.

3. This Court in M/s Monarch Tapes Ltd. Versus Arun Kumar Gupta, Additional Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Hry, Industries & Comm., Hry & Ors, Law Finder Doc ID 2824339, held that limitation period for initiating contempt proceedings is one year under Section 20 of the Act and delayed contempt petition filed after 13 years is barred by limitation and cannot be entertained. Relevant paras of judgment are reproduced as under:-

“2. A perusal of the same shows that the present contempt petition is filed after a period of 13 years.

3. It would be apposite to reproduce Section 20 of 1971 Act, which is reproduced as under:-

"20. Limitation for actions for contempt.-No court shall initiate any proceedings of 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."

4. As per the requirement of the above referred to provision of 1971 Act, wherein, limitation is provided, the contempt can be filed within a period of one year and in the present case, the same has been filed after a delay of almost 13 years.

5. It is trite law as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Tirupathi Rao v. M. Lingamaiah and others, 2024 INSC 544, that Court must adhere to limitation period stipulated under Section 20 of the 1971 Act and once contempt petition was found to be barred by limitation, sufficient cause for delay must be shown by the petitioner.

6. The relevant extract of the same is reproduced as under:-

"28. Having held that the review jurisdiction was not available to be exercised by the Division Bench (review), reversal of the impugned order is the solitary conceivable outcome. However, the importance of the second legal issue cannot be over-emphasized. The purpose of the law of contempt is to secure public respect and confidence in the judicial process. We have found the law on the question of applicability of the principle of "continuous wrong/breach/offence" for the purpose of section 20 of the Act not too certain; hence, we feel it expedient to give a brief overview of the law of contempt and how such law has evolved and developed as well as chart out the course of action to be followed by the high courts while exercising contempt jurisdiction not only generally but also on the face of an objection as to maintainability of a time-barred action initiated by a party for civil contempt. 29. The power of the Supreme Court and a high court to punish for breach of its orders is expressly recognised by Articles 129 and 215 of