JUDGMENT This application is made for contempt against two lawyers and the wife of the applicant. The applicant says that the non-applicants had undertaken before this Court that they will produce the child before the Court on a given date i.e. 4.5.1993 as also on 17.5.93. According to him the child was not produced and, therefore, the non-applicants lawyers as also the wife have committed contempt. The Court's proceedings on 22.6.93 are as follows: "The petitioner is present in person. None appears for non-applicants. The child is not produced by the motor today so far as was directed by this Court on 4.5.93 and 17.5.93. The petitioner submits that he has filed two applications as also one Misc. Civil Revision 200/93. List it tomorrow i.e. 23.6.93 for appropriate orders alongwith C.R. No. 200/93." The petitioner says that ultimately the revision application No. 110/93 in which the above order was passed was dismissed by saying that no useful purpose would be served by passing any orders in the revision petition, the same was rejected. In that revision application, I am told by the applicant that the contempt proceedings were not initiated by the Court, which means that the Court which passed the order do not feel that there was any contempt irrespective of the fact that the child was not produced inspite of the undertaking. The present application has been made on 13.5.94 for initiating contempt proceedings against the lawyers; Mr. M.G. Upadhyaya and Mr. Prakash Jain in addition to the petitioner's wife Anita. I do not see any reason to entertain this petition for several reasons. So far as the learned lawyers appearing for the N.A. No. 3 are concerned, they were appearing as counsel for the client and they made any statement on behalf of the client. It is admitted by the applicant that neither Shri Upadhyaya nor Shri Jain had the custody of the child. It would mean there was no question whatsoever of either of the lawyers to produce the child. In that view of the matter the bringing of such an application against those lawyers itself suggests with what vengance the applicant fights. It is admitted by the applicant that neither Shri Upadhyaya nor Shri Jain had the custody of the child. It would mean there was no question whatsoever of either of the lawyers to produce the child. In that view of the matter the bringing of such an application against those lawyers itself suggests with what vengance the applicant fights. So far as non-applicant No. 3 is concerned, when the Court to which the undertaking was granted when it was in seisin of the matter did not choose to initiate the contempt proceedings, there is no question of the applicant being permitted to move such an application much less there is any reason for me to issue any notice to the other side for contempt. In any case the contempt if at all had taken place on 4.5.93 or 17.5.93 which means that on the date of hearing of the present applicant, more than a year had passed. Under section 20 of the Contempt of Court's Act there is a limitation for initiation of contempt proceedings, the same cannot be initiated after a period of one year. In this view of the matter there is no reason for entertaining the application, hence the same is dismissed.