:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE COTEMPT PETITION NO.140 OF 2004 COTEMPT PETITION NO.140 OF 2004 COTEMPT PETITION NO.140 OF 2004 Leela Kashinath Sankhe ..Petitioner. v. Chintaman Govind Sankhe & Anr. ..Respondents. Mr.Saurabh Railkar, adv. for the Petitioner. Mr.Agarwal for Ashok Gade, advs. for the Respondent No.1. Mr.S.N.Gawde, AGP for the State. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 7th January, 2008. DATE: 7th January, 2008. DATE: 7th January, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner, who is the original plaintiff is the sister of the respondent no.1. In Civil Application No.102 of 1996 in Second Appeal No.323 of 1994, the respondent no.1 was restrained from causing interference in possession of the petitioner in the suit land admeasuring 10 Gunthas. The appeal is pending. By the order dated 8-8-1997, temporary injunction was granted. According to the petitioner, after that she had constructed bar-bed wire fencing around the suit land. However, in spite of the order of temporary injunction, respondent no.1 removed that bar fencing and started disturbing the possession of the petitioner. She filed :2: certain reports of the police and also an application before the Court. In the Contempt Petition filed on 27th February, 2004 contending that actions of the respondent no.1 amount to contempt of the Court. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 denies that the respondent no.1 had ever committed breach of the order of this Court. He also denies that the respondent no.1 had broken bar fencing and had disturbed the possession of the petitioner. He has pointed out that this petition for contempt is barred by the limitation in view of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 3. From the facts alleged in the application, it appears that alleged act of contempt was committed sometimes prior to the year 2000 or at the most in the year 2001. As per Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, no Court shall initiate any proceeding of contempt either on its motion or otherwise after the expiry of period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. Taking into consideration the allegations made by the petitioner, it is clear that the petition is filed long after the expiry of one year from the date of alleged contempt. Therefore, petition stands dismissed. :3: (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)