The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, has dismissed a contempt petition filed by an agriculturist, ruling that the plea was “hopelessly barred by limitation” under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Justice Y. G. Khobragade held that contempt proceedings cannot be initiated more than four years after the alleged willful disobedience, as the statutory limitation period is strictly one year.
Case Background
The petitioner, Santosh Punjaram Pakhre, the original plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 584 of 1995, had initially secured a decree of perpetual injunction against the respondents, Vinayak Sampatrao Wagh and others, on December 30, 2004. However, the First Appellate Court set aside this decree on October 5, 2006, dismissing the suit.
Challenging this dismissal, the petitioner filed Second Appeal No. 141 of 2007 before the High Court. Pending the appeal, the High Court (Coram: R. M. Borde, J.) passed an interim order on October 14, 2008, in Civil Application No. 1466 of 2007, restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful possession over the suit land admeasuring 2 Acres and 25 Ares at village Gondegaon, District Jalna.
The petitioner alleged that on May 28, 2021, the respondents entered the suit land, assaulted his family members, and attempted to disturb his peaceful possession, thereby willfully disobeying the 2008 injunction order. Consequently, the petitioner moved the High Court under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Submissions of the Parties
Senior Advocate Mr. V. D. Sapkal, appearing for the petitioner, argued that despite the subsistence of the injunction order, the respondents had a history of harassing the petitioner. He highlighted that the respondents had allegedly encroached upon the land previously, leading to orders from the Tahsildar in 2012 and 2017 for the removal of obstructions.
Regarding the specific cause of action for the contempt petition, Mr. Sapkal submitted that on May 28, 2021, the respondents entered the suit land while the petitioner’s family was cultivating it, abused them, and assaulted them. An FIR (No. 232 of 2021) was registered regarding the incident. The petitioner contended that these acts constituted willful disobedience amounting to contempt.
Conversely, Mr. Govind Bhagwan Chate, counsel for the respondents, denied the allegations. He submitted that the respondents never encroached upon the land nor disobeyed the court’s order. He relied on an order passed by the Tahsildar-cum-Taluka Magistrate on June 7, 2023, in proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which held that there was no encroachment by the respondents.
Crucially, the respondents argued that the petition was barred by limitation. They pointed out that while the injunction order was from 2008, the petition was filed in 2025, specifically years after the alleged incident of May 28, 2021.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Y. G. Khobragade examined the record and noted that the petitioner is currently in possession of the land. The Court observed that while there were allegations of assault and abuse on May 28, 2021, the material on record did not establish dispossession.
Referring to the FIR lodged by the petitioner regarding the 2021 incident, the Court noted:
“However, on perusal of said FIR it does not reveal that, the respondents/contemnor dispossessed the petitioner from the land in dispute.”
Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Anil Ratan Sarkar Vs. Hirat Ghosh, AIR 2002 SC 1405, the Court reiterated that “mere disobedience of an order of the court may not be sufficient to amount to civil contempt… Element of willingness is indispensable requirement.” The Court held that mere entry and abuse, without dispossession, did not prima facie demonstrate willful disobedience of the injunction against interference with possession in this context.
Limitation Bar
The primary ground for dismissal was the statutory limitation. The Court referred to Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, which prescribes a limitation period of one year for initiating proceedings from the date of the alleged contempt.
The Court observed:
“In the case in hand, the petitioner instituted present contempt petition on 25th February, 2025 alleging that, on 28.05.2021, the Respondents entered in his filed and tried to dispossess him. Therefore, it prima facie appears that, the petitioner has instituted present petition after lapse of more than four years.”
The Court concluded that since the petition was filed well beyond the one-year period prescribed by law, it could not be entertained.
Decision
Holding that the petition was “hopelessly barred by limitation” and that the petitioner failed to demonstrate willful disobedience regarding dispossession, the High Court dismissed Contempt Petition No. 226 of 2025.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Santosh s/o Punjaram Pakhre vs. Vinayak s/o Sampatrao Wagh & Ors.
- Case Number: Contempt Petition No. 226 of 2025 in Civil Application No. 4249 of 2018 in Civil Application No. 1446 of 2007 in Second Appeal No. 141 of 2007
- Coram: Justice Y. G. Khobragade
- Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. V. D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Sandip R. Sapkal
- Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Govind Bhagwan Chate
