C.O.C.P. No. 2050 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P. No. 2050 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : October 29, 2010 Karam Singh ....Petitioner versus Nahar Singh and another ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) CM No. 27619.CII of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. COCP No. 2050 of 2010 Karam Singh has filed the instant contempt petition under section 10 read with section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The petitioner's case is that he had filed suit against respondents Nahar Singh and Kartar Singh and their brother Labh Singh. In that suit compromise dated 21.7.2005, Annexure P/1 was effected. According to compromise, respondents herein left 1½ karams wide passage for the plaintiffs including petitioner herein. In view of said compromise, the said suit was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 21.7.2005. C.O.C.P. No. 2050 of 2010 (O&M) -2- However, the respondents in violation of the aforesaid compromise have merged aforesaid passage with their adjoining land and FIR No. 135 dated 19.12.2005 was registered against the respondents. Respondents have thus violated compromise Annexure P/1 by which they had agreed to abide by and thus respondents have committed contempt of court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Without going into merits of the averments made in the contempt petition, suffice to observe that the alleged contempt was committed on or before 19.12.2005 when the petitioner lodged FIR regarding alleged dismantling of the passage and its merger with their remaining land by the respondents. However, the instant contempt petition has been instituted on 28.9.2010 i.e. more than four years and nine months after the alleged commission of contempt. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 provides that no Court shall initiate any proceeding of contempt after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. In view of said mandatory provision, the instant contempt petition is hopelessly barred by limitation and cognizance thereof cannot be taken. The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) October 29, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'