HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3208 of 2025 Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J. 1. The present contempt application has been preferred for alleged disobedience of the judgment and order dated 18.05.2023 passed by this Court in the Matter Under Article 227 No.2570 of 2023 (Rajit Ram Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.). The relevant part of the said judgment and order is quoted hereinbelow:- " Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no gainful purpose will be served in keeping the aforesaid petition pending rather ends of justice can be served by directing the respondent No.-2 to consider and decide the pending proceedings of Case No. T2016042345032502 (Rajit Ram Versus Mahadev) most expeditiously, after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any adjournment to either of the parties preferably within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the authority concerned, if there is no other legal impediment in this regard. The petitioner would also file an undertaking before the authority concerned, indicating therein that he would not take any adjournment and he will appear on each dates. It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the authority concerned shall be free to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law. With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of. " Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Desh Deepak, Abhijat Pratap Singh, Ashutosh Rawat, Sanjay Chaubey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Rajit Ram .....Applicant(s) Sri Dinesh Kumar Tehsildar Tehsil Bikapur Dist. Ayodhya .....Opposite Party(s) 2. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that this Court vide its judgment and order dated 18.05.2023 has directed that necessary exercise be completed at the earliest preferably within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the authority concerned. The copy of the order was served on 25.05.2023 and three months period had expired on 25/26.08.2023 but the case has not yet been decided. 3. Learned Standing counsel has submitted that the present contempt application is barred by Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as for the first time cause of action arose on 25/26.08.2023 and the present contempt application has been filed on 27.09.2025 i.e. after expiry of two years period from the date when the cause of action first arose and as per Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the contempt petition is to be filed within a period one year from the date of cause of action arose. 4. 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 25/26.08.2024 whereas the present contempt application has been filed on 27.09.2025 i.e. after about more than one year and one month from the date the contempt has alleged to have been committed, 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. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the applicant and going through the record of the case, it is an admitted case of the applicant that the contempt has alleged to have been committed on 25/26.08.2023 and as per Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the contempt petition is to be filed within a period of one year from the date contempt has alleged to have been committed. For convenience, the Section 20 of the Contempt Courts Act, 1971 is being reproduced hereinbelow:- "20. Limitation for actions for contempt:- No court shall initiate any proceedings of 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." CAPL No. 3208 of 2025 2 6. Further, 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. 7. In the present case, the contempt has alleged to have been committed on 25/26.08.2023 whereas the present contempt petition has been preferred after the expiry of more than one year i.e. on 27.09.2025 whereas it was to be filed prior to or on 25/26.08.2024. Hence, it is barred by Section 20 of the Contempt Courts Act, 1971. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present contempt application is dismissed. October 7, 2025 S. Kumar CAPL No. 3208 of 2025 3 (Manish Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- SANTOSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench