JUDGMENT S.K. Dhaon and D.S. Sinha, JJ. - In this petition, which has been filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh and Sri R.N. Chaturvedi, Additional District Magistrate, Agra (hereinafter referred to as Shri Chaturvedi) the principal prayer made is that a writ order or direction in the nature of prohibition be issued restraining the Civil Judge, Agra, from proceeding with the Case No. 222 of 1980 pending in his court and also restraining him from effecting personal attendance of Shri Chaturvedi. 2. Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. The material facts which are relevant for the purposes of present writ petition and which have emerged from the affidavits are these. In suit No. 277 of 1977 instituted by Smt. Savitri Devi and others against the State of Uttar Pradesh and others a money decree in the sum of Rs. 11470/ - was passed. Execution proceedings were initiated for the recovery of the said amount, Though an appeal had been preferred, yet no stay order had been granted by the appellate Court. On 21st October, 1980, the Civil Judge, issued a Parwana for the attachment of the vehicle in the charge of the Collector or Additional Collector for the satisfaction of the decretal amount. The Parwana was taken by Shri D.P. Singh, the Court Amin for the attachment of the vehicle. Shri Singh accompanied by Shri D.C. Bhargava, the pairokar of the plaintiff contacted Shri Chaturvedi in the District Magistrate's chambers and showed him the Parwana. The court Amin reported that Shri Chaturvedi had used derogatory language and also obstructed the execution of the decree. Thereupon, on 29th October, 1980, the Civil Judge Agra, issued a show cause notice to Shri Chaturvedi. 3. A true copy of the said show cause notice has been filed as Annexure 3 to the petition. Material contents of this notice are these. In the execution of the decree the Amin proceeded to seize the jeep of Shri Chaturvedi. As soon as the Amin assisted by the pairokar of the decree holder reached the residence of Shri Chaturvedi he (Shri Chaturvedi) resisted the seizure in a defiant and angry mood and asserted. "You stupid (Pairokar of the D.H.) You got out from here. I will see who would venture to make the seizure of my car-1 will get the Amin arrested". "You stupid (Pairokar of the D.H.) You got out from here. I will see who would venture to make the seizure of my car-1 will get the Amin arrested". Shri Chaturvedi by obstructing the process of law not only committed an alleged offence of resistance or obstruction but also committed contempt of the court in so far as he undermined the authority of the Court. The penultimate paragraph of the notice is relevant and the same is being extracted: You are, therefore, directed to appear in person on 15th day of November, 1980, before this Court and to show cause as to why the criminal prosecution as well as contempt proceedings should not be launched against you. 4. Standing counsel has not been able to cite any provision of law or any authority to demonstrate that the learned Civil Judge acted without jurisdiction while issuing the aforesaid show cause notice. Obviously, the learned Civil Judge did not initiate any criminal or contempt proceedings. No court could take cognizance of the offence of resisting or obstructing the execution proceedings except on the complaint in writing of the learned civil Judge (Section 195 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1975). The learned Civil Judge had no jurisdiction to draw contempt proceedings against Shri Chaturvedi. At best, he could invite the attention of this Court that in his opinion Sri Chaturvedi had committed the contempt of his court and was, therefore, liable to be punished. This could be done by making a reference to this Court u/s 15(2) of the contempt of courts Act. Therefore, the learned Civil Judge, it appears by issuing the show cause notice had tried to make up his mind either to file a criminal complaint against Shri Chaturvedi in a competent criminal court or to make a reference to this Court u/s 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act or to take both the actions. We are satisfied that in the show cause notice it was implicit that the Civil Judge was in the process of making up his mind. This is the precised stand taken by him in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit wherein he was averred that he thought it fit to issue notice to Shri Chaturvedi with a view to find out as to whether any prima facie case is made out. This is the precised stand taken by him in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit wherein he was averred that he thought it fit to issue notice to Shri Chaturvedi with a view to find out as to whether any prima facie case is made out. The conclusion is, therefore, irresistible that the Civil Judge neither acted illegally nor without jurisdiction in issuing the show cause notice. 5. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act mandates that no court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. Indisputably, only this Court could or can initiate proceedings of contempt against Shri Chaturvedi. The terminus a quo for contempt proceedings, in the instance case, will be 21st October, 1980 and terminus and quem will be one year from the said date. It is apparent that the show cause notice issued by the Civil Judge to Shri Chaturvedi will not amount to initiation of contempt proceedings so as to arrest the running of limitation. Even if this Court had issued a notice to Shri Chaturvedi to show cause as to why the petition be not admitted would not have amounted to initiation to initiation of proceedings to save limitation. It follows, limitation could be saved only if this Court had, after the receipt of the reference from the Civil Judge u/s 15(2), considered the matter and issued notice to Shri Chaturvedi to show cause as to why he should not be punished for having committed the contempt of the court of the Civil Judge. This court had, on 13th January, 1981, passed an interim order, the relevant portion of which ran: Until further orders proceedings in the contempt matter pending before respondent shall remain stayed. This interim order is operative even now. The language employed by the Legislature in Section 20 is clear and explicit. As it fixes a period of limitation for initiating contempt proceedings, its contents have to be strictly construed. This interim order is operative even now. The language employed by the Legislature in Section 20 is clear and explicit. As it fixes a period of limitation for initiating contempt proceedings, its contents have to be strictly construed. There is no scope whatsoever to give a liberal interpretation to its contents so as to entitle us to take the view that the entire period during which the aforequoted interim order of this Court has remained operative should be excluded for computing the period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. We have, therefore, no alternative but to hold that the proceedings initiated by the Civil Judge for the purpose of finding out as to whether a prima facie case existed for preference being made to this curt u/s 15(2) of the Contempt of Court Act have become infructuous by efflux of time. 6. Like Section 20, there was no provision in the old Act. Thus, there was no limitation prescribed and any delay was normally regarded as fatal, though there may be exceptional cases where the delay could be overlooked. The Sanyal Committee observed: We feel that on the whole the necessity of making any hard and fast rule on the subject matter may continue to be governed by the discretion of the courts as hitherto before. The joint Select Committee, however, struck a different note: The committee therefore considered it necessary and desirable that the period of limitation should be specified in respect of actions for contempt and have accordingly laid down in the next clause a period of one year at the expiration of which no proceedings for contempt should be initiated. This is our opinion, is a typical case whereas, on account of rigidness in the language employed by the Legislature in Section 20, an alleged case of interference with the administration of justice will remain universtigated thereby diluting the trite law that the necessity to punish for the offence of the contempt of court is founded entirely on public policy. In our opinion, Section 20 requires a suitable amendment. However, it is a matter for the Parliament to look into. 7. The second limb of the show cause notice, namely, the alleged resistance or obstruction in the execution proceedings by Shri Chaturvedi is still alive. In our opinion, Section 20 requires a suitable amendment. However, it is a matter for the Parliament to look into. 7. The second limb of the show cause notice, namely, the alleged resistance or obstruction in the execution proceedings by Shri Chaturvedi is still alive. The court had not passed any interim order with respect to those proceedings. If those proceedings have terminated during the pendency of this petition that will be the end of the matter. If, however, on account of the interim order passed by this Court the learned Civil Judge did not proceed at all, it will now be open to him to proceed and determine the question as to whether a prima facie case that Shri Chaturvedi resisted or obstructed the execution proceedings exists and if it does exist as to whether it will be in the interest of justice that a criminal complaint should be filed by him (the Civil Judge) against Shri Chaturvedi. 8. With these observations, this petition is dismissed, but without any order as to costs.