Contempt Petition Barred by Limitation; Court Finds No Willful Disobedience

A single‑judge bench of Justice Y. G. Khobragade of the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) heard a contempt petition under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 challenging alleged breach of an injunction dated 14.10.2008 in proceedings connected with a second appeal and ancillary civil applications relating to agricultural land in village Gondegaon, Jalna district.

The High Court dismissed the contempt petition, holding that the petitioner failed to establish the essential ingredient of "willful" disobedience and that the proceedings were time‑barred. The Court observed that isolated acts such as entry, abuse or assault did not ipso facto demonstrate contempt where dispossession during the subsistence of the injunction was not proved. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In case of Anil Ratan Sarkar Vs. Hirat Ghosh, AIR 2002 SC 1405, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, mere disobedience of an order of the court may not be sufficient to amount to civil contempt within the meaning Sec. 2 (b) of the Act, 1971. Element of willingness is indispensable requirement to bring home the charge within the meaning of the Contempt of Courts Act." The Court also noted that "mere entry of the respondents into suit land on 28.05.2021 and abusement in filthy language, assault to the petitioner and his family members does not itself establish that, the respondents have willfully disobeyed the order dated 14.10.2008."

Background The dispute arose from Regular Civil Suit No. 584 of 1995 in which the trial court on 30.12.2004 granted a decree of perpetual injunction in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants from disturbing his possession over two parcels of agricultural land (2 Acres and 25 Acres) in Gat No. 163, Gondegaon. The first appellate court allowed the defendants' Regular Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2005 on 05.10.2006 and dismissed the plaintiff’s suit. The plaintiff filed Second Appeal No. 141 of 2007 and Civil Application No. 1466 of 2007 seeking interim relief; this Court on 14.10.2008 granted "interim relief in terms of prayer clause (C)".

The petitioner alleged that respondents and their family members repeatedly interfered with his possession, stole crops, and on 28.05.2021 entered the suit land, abused and assaulted his relatives. Revenue and police communications followed: a Tahsildar order of 04.10.2012 directed removal of obstructions, and Section 145 proceedings were said to have been initiated. The petitioner relied on several FIRs and witness affidavits filed after a 03.07.2025 hearing date. The respondents denied encroachment and tendered an unconditional apology for any inadvertent disobedience; they relied on a Tahsildar‑cum‑Taluka Magistrate order dated 07.06.2023 holding there was no encroachment.

The High Court reviewed earlier judicial observations, including an order of 16.01.2019 where the Court recorded that "there is nothing on record which would show that encroachment is made by the respondents over the land..." The Court examined whether the acts complained of amounted to civil contempt, applying the Supreme Court precedent in Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirat Ghosh that the element of willingness was indispensable. The petitioner’s own pleadings and affidavits did not demonstrate dispossession of the land during the subsistence of the 2008 injunction; witnesses described entry, abuse and assault but not loss of possession. The Court further held that Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act prescribed a one‑year limitation for initiating contempt proceedings; the alleged conduct of 28.05.2021 was complained of only by the filing of the contempt petition on 25.02.2025, more than four years later. Finding both absence of willful disobedience and fatal delay, the Court dismissed the contempt petition. No interim relief or further directions were issued in the judgment.

Case Details: Case No.: Contempt Petition No. 226 of 2025 in Civil Application No. 4249 of 2018 in Civil Application No. 1466 of 2007 in Second Appeal No. 141 of 2007 Case Title: Santosh s/o Punjaram Pakhre v. Vinayak s/o Sampatrao Wagh & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. V. D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate a/w Ms. Priyanka L. Kale; instructed by Mr. Sandip R. Sapkal, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Govind Bhagwan Chate, Advocate