Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:5365 Court No. - 17 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 210 of 2025 Applicant :- Shyam Kumar Opposite Party :- Sarab Singh, Tehsildar Nawabganj Barabanki Counsel for Applicant :- Satish Kumar Misra Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. 1. The present contempt application has been filed for alleged non-compliance of the judgment and order dated 20.09.2021, passed by the Civil Judge (S.D), Court No. 20, Barabanki in Regular Suit No. 476 of 2021 (Basant Kumar and others versus Vinod Kumar), whereby the parties were directed to maintain status quo with regard to gata no. 732, 734 and 735, as indicated in the map filed along with the suit and the alleged non-compliance of the order dated 03.06.2022, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in the case filed under Section 116 of the U.P Revenue Code, 2006. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that despite the order of status quo by the Civil Judge (S.D), Court No. 20, Barabanki dated 20.09.2021, the respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 had executed a sale deed on 08.10.2021 and thereafter, other sale deeds were also executed by them. Similarly, despite the order dated 03.06.2022, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, whereby it was directed that the copy of the order may also be placed before the Deputy Registrar, so no sale deed could be executed for the land of gata no. 732, 734 and 735, but despite the order dated 03.06.2022, the sale deed was executed on 08.06.2023. 3. As per Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1971), 'no court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise after the expiry of the period of one year from the date on which, the contempt is alleged to have been committed'. 4. The first time cause of action, as far as the order dated 20.09.2021, passed by the Civil Judge (S.D), Barabanki is concerned, arose on 08.10.2021 and one year period for filing the contempt application, as per Section 20 of the Contempt of the Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1971), came to an end on 08.10.2022 and the present contempt application has been filed in January, 2025 i.e. after a delay of more than two years and three months. 5. Similarly, the first time cause of action arose for filing the contempt application, as far as the order dated 03.06.2022 is concerned, on 08.06.2023, when the sale deed was executed, whereas one year period for filing the contempt application, as per Section 20 of the Act, 1971, came to an end on 08.06.2024, but the present contempt application has been filed with a delay of more than 7 months. 6. On being asked from the learned counsel for the applicant to address the Court on Section 20 of the Act, 1971 as one year period had expired on 08.10.2022 and 08.06.2024 respectively, whereas the present contempt application has been filed in January, 2025 i.e. after more than 2 years & 3 months and 7 months respectively, learned counsel for the applicant is unable to assist the court on the query put by the court to advance the submissions relating to Section 20 of the Act, 1971. 7. In the case of Islammudin vs. Umesh Chandra Tiwari and Anr. [2009 (5) ADJ 656 (DB)], the Division Bench of this Court has held that the law laid down by the Apex Court in Pallav Sheth vs. Costodian and Ors. [(2001) 7 SCC 549] does not make Section 5 of the Act 1963 applicable and would not confer power upon the Court to condone or waive delay where proceedings of contempt are sought to be initiated under the Act, 1971 after one year from the date when the contempt is alleged to have been committed. 8. In view of above, the present contempt application is barred by Section 20 of the Act, 1971, hence the same is dismissed. Order Date :- 28.1.2025 DiVYa Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench