Registry Can't Refuse To Register Contempt Petition Citing Limitation Which Only Court Can Adjudicate: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court has held that the Registry cannot refuse to register a contempt petition on the ground that it is barred by limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. [2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 93]

The Court observed that questions relating to limitation or maintainability must only be decided by the contempt court itself.

Allowing a contempt appeal, a Division Bench of Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda observed:

"At the outset, we are of the considered opinion that even if it be a matter of limitation or any other preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of the contempt case is concerned, it is not the Registry which has to raise an objection, rather in a contempt case, the role of the appellant herein, the petitioner in contempt case, is only that of an informer informing the Court in respect of the so-called violation or non-compliance or disobedience of the order. Rest of the role is between the Court and the contemnor. Maintainability of the case itself is again a matter, which needs to be considered and decided only by the contempt Court seized of jurisdiction."

The Bench accordingly set aside an order of the contempt court upholding the Registry's office objection and directed the Registry to register the contempt case.

The appeal arose from the rejection of a contempt petition filed by the Divyanagar Plot Owners Welfare Association alleging wilful violation of an order passed in 2022 directing the authorities not to demolish the society's compound wall without following due process of law.

The appellant contended that despite the restraint order, the respondents proceeded with and continued the demolition, necessitating initiation of contempt proceedings.

However, when the contempt case was presented, the Registry raised an office objection stating that it had been filed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, relying upon the Supreme Court's decision in S. Tirupathi Rao v. M. Lingamaiah. The learned Single Judge upheld the office objection and directed the Registry to return the contempt case bundle.

Setting aside the order, the Division Bench held that the Registry had no role in deciding whether a contempt petition was barred by limitation.

The Court observed that once information regarding an alleged act of contempt is placed before the Court, the issue of maintainability falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the contempt court.

Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in S. Tirupathi Rao, the Bench extracted the observations that a person moving a contempt petition acts merely as an "informer", and that contempt proceedings are substantially a matter between the Court and the alleged contemnor.

Quoting the Supreme Court, the High Court noted:

"The role of such a party, who brings a petition for contempt and activates the court's machinery, is merely that of an informer... the matter relating to entertainment of his petition and the punishment to be imposed... relate to the exclusive jurisdiction and authority of the High Courts to punish for contempt and is substantially a matter between the court and the alleged contemnor."

The Division Bench further observed that even assuming there was delay in approaching the Court, it was for the contempt court to examine when the alleged violation had occurred, whether the delay was justified, and whether the material disclosed a case of wilful disobedience.

It held that the learned Single Judge ought not to have refused to entertain the contempt petition solely because the Registry had noted that it was filed beyond the period prescribed under the Act.

"Insofar as the limitation is concerned, the concerned Single Bench ought to have gone into the other aspects also," the Court observed, adding that the issue required judicial consideration instead of rejection at the Registry stage.

Accordingly, the Division Bench overruled the Registry's objection, set aside the impugned order dated January 9, 2026, and directed the Registry to register the contempt case and place it before the competent contempt court for consideration on its own merits in accordance with law.

Case Title: M/s. Divyanagar Plot Owners Welfare Association v. Mr. Gowtham Potru & Ors.

Case No.: Contempt Appeal No. 7 of 2026

Appearance: Mr. G. Narender Reddy for the appellant.

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 93