1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 32 OF 2004 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2255 OF 2003 IN SUIT. NO. 1539 OF 1999 AND COUNTER CLAIM NO. 1926 OF 2000 Green Field Rocks End Co-operative Housing Society Limited., .. Petitioner. Vs. Manju Gupta & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Dipen Furia with Ms. Uma Jha i/by M/s. Niranjan & Co. for the Petitioner. None for respondents. CORAM : J. N. PATEL & SMT. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ 2 DATE : 31ST JULY, 2009 P.C. : Heard. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute between the parties being settled, the Court may not initiate contempt proceedings as sought for. This petition came to be lodged by the petitioner on 20.2.2004 and registered by the office of the Court on 20.3.2004. It was arising out of proceedings in Notice of Motion No. 2255 of 2003 taken out in Suit No. 1539 of 1994 and the Counter Claim No. 1926 of 2000. It was pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 25.3.2004 that notice before admission came to be issued to respondent no. 5 as well as respondent nos. 6 to 11 on the basis that the said affidavit was filed on their behalf by respondent no. 5 and it was made returnable in three weeks. On 15.4.2004, the learned Single Judge recorded that notices have been duly served on respondent nos. 5 to 11. In the meantime the petition was assigned to another Judge and on 17.6.2004 it was brought to the notice of the Court that this contempt petition would not lie on the civil side and it would be a criminal contempt as defined in Section 2(c) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 by drawing attention to the rules framed 3 under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pritam Pal vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR-1992-SC-904 and therefore, the learned Single Judge observed:- 3. “ In my view, in the case of criminal contempt it is only Division Bench which can hear the matter after cognizance is taken in the manner done in the instant case by learned Single Judge. Office to verify and thereafter post the matter before appropriate Division Bench.” It is thereafter that for the first time the office has listed the matter before us (Patel and Bhatkar, JJ.). The last order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court clearly indicates that the learned Single Judge has no jurisdiction to entertain the contempt petition it being a criminal contempt and, therefore, the show cause notice issued by the learned Single Judge cannot be construed as initiation of contempt proceedings by Court as it had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. 3. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 provides for limitation for actions for contempt. It reads as under :- 4 20. “ Limitation for actions for contempt.-- No Court shall initiate any proceedings for 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. Therefore, this Court finds that though the learned Single Judge has directed the Registry of this Court to place the matter before appropriate Bench i.e., the Division Bench dealing with cases of criminal contempt, after a lapse of more than five years we are not inclined to initiate proceedings for criminal contempt against the respondents, particularly when the parties have reconciled their disputes. Therefore, the contempt petition stands dismissed. ( J. N. PATEL, J) (SMT. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J)