S.B. CCP No. 1210/2013

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 1210/2013

Ramesh Kumar Garwa vs. Naresh Kumar Batra & Anr.

In

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4918/2012

Date of Order :   3^rd December, 2013

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN

Mr. Vijay Poonia, for the petitioner.

The petitioner has filed this contempt petition

ostensibly on the ground that the judgment passed by this

Court on 2.7.2012 has not been complied with by the

respondents-contemnors. The present petition has been

filed on 27.9.2013. Thus, obviously the petition has been

filed after a period of one year. Therefore, this Court

has requested Mr. Vijay Poonia, the learned counsel for

the petitioner, to address on the point of limitation.

2.

Mr. Vijay Poonia has made the following

submissions before this Court:-

Firstly, Article 215 of the Constitution of

India bestows the inherent power of contempt upon this

Court. Therefore, the limitation prescribed by Section 20

of the Contempt of Courts Act ('the Act' in short) would

not be applicable to a contempt petition filed under

Article 215 of the Constitution of India. Secondly, once

an acknowledgment has been made, the period of limitation

would start running from the date of acknowledgment. In

the present case, immediately after the judgment dated

2.7.2012 was pronounced, the petitioner had filed a

S.B. CCP No. 1210/2013

2

representation on 23.7.2012. By letter dated 6.8.2012,

the respondents-contemnors had acknowledged the fact that

the judgment dated 2.7.2012 is yet to be implemented.

Since, an acknowledgment was made, the period of

limitation would start from 6.8.2012. Thirdly, by the

said letter dated 6.8.2012, the petitioner was directed

to submit a fresh representation, therefore, the

petitioner had filed a new representation on 24.9.2012.

Hence, the period of limitation would actually start

running from 24.9.2012. Hence, the petition is well

within the period of limitation.

3.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4.

Article 215 of the Constitution of India reads

as under:-

“215. High Courts to be courts of record.-

Every High Court shall be a court of record

and shall have all the powers of such a court

including the power to punish for contempt of

itself.”

5.

Article 215 of the Constitution of India does

not reveal an inherent power of the Court; instead it

bestows the power of contempt upon the court. Thus, it is

merely an enabling provision clothing the courts with the

power to punish for contempt of itself.

6.

In the case of Pallav Seth v. Custodian and

Others [(2001) 7 SCC 549], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

held as follows:-

Firstly, a contempt proceeding can be initiated by

two modes, either the court can initiate the contempt

S.B. CCP No. 1210/2013

3

proceedings on its own (suo moto), or otherwise. The word

“otherwise” has been interpreted to mean that the initiation

would have to be done by a party by filing an application.

Therefore, the Supreme Court was of the opinion that the

“proper construction” to be placed on Section 20 of the Act

must be that action must be initiated, either by filing of an

application, or by a Court issuing notice suo moto within a

period of one year from the date on which the contempt is

alleged to have been committed.

Secondly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not find

that Section 20 of the Act either stultifies or abrogates the

power bestowed upon the Apex Court under Article 129 or

Article 215 of the Constitution of India.

Thirdly, since Section 20 of the Act is a special

law prescribing a period of limitation, different from the

limitation prescribed by the Limitation Act, which happens to

be the general law, the special law would naturally override

and take precedent over the Limitation Act-the general law.

Thus, while exercising the pow