Contempt Plea Must Be Filed Within 1-Year Of Alleged Violation; Party Can't Claim 'Continuing Wrong' To Circumvent Limitation: AP High Court

Holding that a contempt petition must ordinarily be filed within one year from the date of the alleged contempt, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a contempt case as barred by limitation, rejecting the petitioner's plea that the non-compliance of the earlier court order constituted a continuing wrong. [2026 LiveLaw (AP) 138]

The Court observed that where a court order prescribes a specific time for compliance, limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 begins to run from the expiry of that period, and cannot be indefinitely extended merely by describing the breach as a continuing wrong.

Before a Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta was a contempt petition alleging wilful disobedience of an earlier High Court order directing the respondents to implement a Tribunal's order within three months.

Seeking initiation of contempt proceedings for the respondents' alleged non-compliance, the petitioner contended that the cause of action was continuous. Referring to the Supreme Court's principles on limitation in contempt proceedings, the Court observed:

"Even if a contempt is committed and within the stipulated period of one year from such commission no action is brought before the court on the specious ground that the contempt has been continuing, no party should be encouraged to wait indefinitely to choose his own time to approach the court. If the bogey of “continuing wrong/breach/offence” is mechanically accepted whenever it is advanced as a ground for claiming exemption, an applicant may knock the doors of the Court any time suiting his convenience.

If an action for contempt is brought belatedly, say any time after the initial period of limitation and years after the date of first breach, it is the prestige of the court that would seem to become a casualty during the period the breach continues. Once the dignity of the court is lowered in the eyes of the public by non-compliance of its order, it would be farcical to suddenly initiate proceedings after long lapse of time. Not only would the delay militate against the legislative intent of inserting Section 20 in the Act rendering the section a dead letter, the damage caused to the majesty of the court could be rendered irreparable."

The petitioner admitted that the contempt petition had been filed beyond the statutory period but contended that the cause of action was continuous since the respondents had still not complied with the earlier order.

The Bench noted that the petitioner had neither pleaded any facts establishing a continuing cause of action nor disclosed any ground seeking exemption from the law of limitation.

The petitioner further contended that since the Tribunal's order was subsequently challenged by the Tirupati Municipal Corporation in a separate writ petition, the one-year limitation for initiating contempt proceedings should not start from the date on which the respondents were originally required to comply with the High Court's order.

Rejecting the petitioner's submission, the Court held that the one-year limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act had to be computed from the expiry of the three-month period granted in the earlier writ order for implementation of the Tribunal's decision. It further noted that there was nothing on record to show that the writ order had ever been stayed or kept in abeyance, observing:

“We are not convinced with the submission that the cause of action is continuous. There is a specific direction to comply within a specified period. If the order was not complied within that period, the contempt petition should have been filed within a period of limitation as prescribed under Section 20 of the Act from the date of expiry of the period as specified in the order of the writ Court.”

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the contempt petition as barred by limitation.

Case Title: S. Janardhana v. Shri Anil Kumar Singhal & Ors.

Case No.: Contempt Case No. 3541 of 2024

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P. Raghavender Reddy

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 138