Judgment :- 1. By this petition the petitioners have prayed that action should be taken against the respondent under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for alleged disobedience of an order dated 30-8-1978 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Palghat on Report No. 2 of 1978 submitted to that court by the receivers appointed in O. S. No. 237 of 1975 on its file. By the said order the Subordinate Judge had directed the respondent to produce certain ledgers and documents relating to the period from 1964 onwards upto 1974-75 in court within a week from the date of its passing (30tb August, 1978) The complaint of the petitioner is that the respondent has failed to comply with the said direction and hence is guilty of contempt of court. 2. A preliminary objection is taken by the respondent that since more than one year has expired from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed by him, no proceeding for contempt can be initiated against him at present in view of the provision contained in S.20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 prescribing the period of limitation applicable to actions for contempt. After hearing both sides we consider that there is force in this contention and that it has to be upheld. If the allegations contained in the petition are true, the respondent has committed a disobedience of the order dated 30-8-1978 passed by the Subordinate Judge which required him to produce the documents, ledgers, records etc. within a period of one week from 30-8-1978. It was argued by counsel appearing for the petitioners that this is a case of a continuing offence; but we do not find it possible to accept the said contention. The disobedience was complete on the failure on the part of the respondent to comply with the direction given by the court below within the period of one week from 30-8-1978; in other words, the alleged offence of contempt was committed on 7-9-1978. The petitioners instituted this original petition before this Court only on 25th March, 1980, after a lapse of nearly 11/2 years from the date of the commission of the disobedience amounting to contempt. 3. We see no force in the contention advanced by the counsel for the petitioners that the provisions of S.20 will not apply to cases of civil contempt. 3. We see no force in the contention advanced by the counsel for the petitioners that the provisions of S.20 will not apply to cases of civil contempt. The wording of the section is wide enough to embrace all proceedings for contempt taken either suo mote or on a motion by parties. 4. Reliance was placed by the counsel for the petitioners on a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sudesh Kumar v. Jai Narain and another (Punjab Law Reporter Vol. LXXVI-1974 p. 23) where the learned judge has taken the view that for the purposes of S.20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 the date on which the contempt can be said to be committed "has to be reckoned from the time when the Court becomes aware of the commission of its contempt and not from the date on which the act, comprehended to be contemptuous of this Court was committed by the contemner". In view of the clean language used in S.20 we do not, with respect, find it possible to accept this view. The starting point of limitation under the section can only be the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed by the person against whom the charge is levelled. In the light of the foregoing discussion we hold that inasmuch as this petition has been brought only long after the period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed by the respondent, the bar of limitation prescribed by S.20 applies to this case and the proceedings have to be dropped on that ground. The original petition is accordingly dismissed. There will be no direction regarding costs. Dismissed.