JUDGMENT 1. - This application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, 'the Act')was filed on 13.8.93 against respondents Shri N.K. Bairwa, Chairman- cum-Managing Director, Rajasthan Financial Corporation and Shri N.K. Sethi,Executive Director, Rajasthan Financial Corporation, Jaipur, praying that respondents be punished suitably in respect of the non-compliance of the order dated 24.3.92 subsequently corrected on 7.4.93 passed by this court in Writ Petition No. 1697/82. 2. The relevant portion of the order dated 24.3.92 is as follows: "As the departmental enquiry against the petitioner has ended and he has been exonerated substantially, there is no question of quashing of those proceedings.Also there is no question of issuing any direction to the Department to promote the petitioner as he already stands promoted as Manager. In these circumstances,the only points to be decided by the Department are:_ (i) as to what is the effect of non-consideration of the name of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Manager as against the vacancies of the years 1981 onwards till the year of his~promotion; (ii) If the reason was:departmental enquiry, why sealed cover procedure was not followed ? Apart from above, the authorities will also decide as to what are the benefits, to which the petitioner was untitled but was deprived of due to lapse on the part of the authorities concerned. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the direction to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to decide the points indicated in the body of this judgment according to law and in the light of the observations made above. They are also directed to decide the inter se seniority between the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 according to law. Parties shall bear their own costs." 3. Learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the contempt application by urging that no court could initiate any proceedings for contempt after the expiry of one year from the date on which contempt was alleged to have been committed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as the error in the order dated 24.3.92 was corrected on 7.4.93, the period of limitation of one year would start running from that date. 5. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as the error in the order dated 24.3.92 was corrected on 7.4.93, the period of limitation of one year would start running from that date. 5. On 7.4.93,this Court passed the following order for correction: "Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inadvertantly in the judgment at page 6 line four,word "Not"has been mentioned, hence the same be deleted. Accordingly,the word"Not"at page 6, line 4 is deleted. This application stands decided." 6. Looking at the context of the matter, in my opinion,the petitioner has taken a false refuge, which is unsupportable in law for explaining the delay in filing the contempt application. The error in the order dated 24.3.92 was a typographical error. The petition, under Section 12 of the Act has been filed after the expiry of period of limitation prescribed by Section 20 of the Act and as such the application was liable to be rejected on that ground. 7. Examining the merits of the contempt application, it appears to me that all that was required by the judgment had been done by the officers concerned. The petitioner was given promotion to the post of Manager in 1987. The question only left was that of seniority. For the seniority as well, needful opportunity was given. The petitioner figured at Sr. No. 7 and K. K. Sharma was at Sr. No. 6. Relevant facts pertaining to this controversy have been mentioned in the counter affidavit, and looking to that,in my opinion, the respondents have not committed any contempt. 8. Jurisdiction in contempt could not be invoked unless there is a real prejudice, which could be regarded as substantial interference with due course of justice and the purpose of the court's action is a practical purpose.In the instant case, all that was required to be done by the authorities had already been done. What was said by the Supreme Court in connection with the contempt proceedings in Special Reference No.1 of 1964 is quoted below: "We ought never to forget that the power to punish for contempt,large as it is, must always be exercised cautiously, wisely and with circumspection. Frequent or indiscriminate use of this power in anger or irritation would not help to sustain the dignity or status of the court,but may sometimes affect it adversely. Frequent or indiscriminate use of this power in anger or irritation would not help to sustain the dignity or status of the court,but may sometimes affect it adversely. Wise judges never forget that the best way to sustain the dignity and status of their office is to deserve respect from the public at large by the quality of their judgments, the fearlessness, fairness and objectivity of their approach an by the restraint, dignity and decorum which they observe in their judicial conduct." 9. Proceedings by way of contempt being summary, and the Court being both the accuser and the Judge of the accusation, such proceedings have to be initiated in exceptional cases where there is a serious interference with the proceedings of the court. 10. Consequently, the contempt application is rejected and the notices are discharged.No order as to costs.Petition rejected. *******