S. P. MEHROTRA, J. ( 1 ) THE present contempt petition has been filed under Section 12 of the Contenpt of Courts Act, 1971, inter-alia, praying for initiating contempt proceedings against the opposite parties and punishing them for having committed contempt of this Court by disobeying the order dated 30 september, 1992 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. Nil of 1992. ( 2 ) THE present contempt petition was filed on 29th April, 1993. ( 3 ) BY the order dated 30th April 1993, the petitioner-applicant was granted time for filing supplementary affidavit, and the contempt petition was directed to be put up on 4th May, 1993. ( 4 ) ON 4th May, 1993, the contempt petition was directed to be listed in ordinary course. ( 5 ) A perusal of the order-sheet shows that by the order dated 6-9-1993, the Court directed the present Contempt Petition to be listed showing the name of Shri Bharatji Agarwal, Advocate as the learned counsel for the opposite parties. ( 6 ) IN view of the said order dated 6-9-1993, the Office submitted its report dated 13-3-1994, inter-alia, stating that the appearance slip 6-9-1993 of Shri Bharatji Agarwal was concerned with contempt Petition No. 629 of 1987 instead of the present Contempt Petition, i. e. Contempt petition No. 837 of 1993. ( 7 ) THE Office has thereafter submitted its report dated 5-2-2004, inter-alia, stating that the said contempt Petition No. 629 of 1987 had already been dismissed on 18-8-1999. ( 8 ) A persual of the record including the order-sheet of the Contempt Petition makes it evident that no order has so far been passed directing for issuance of notices to the opposite parties on the Contempt Petition. As such, no notice has so far been issued to any of the opposite parties on the contempt Petition. ( 9 ) IN the circumstances, I am of the opinion that no useful purpose will be Served by directing for issuance of notices to the opposite parties now after a lapse of about 11 years since the filing of the Contempt Petition in April, 1993. ( 10 ) THERE is one more aspect of the matter. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 provides as follows : 20. ( 10 ) THERE is one more aspect of the matter. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 provides as follows : 20. Limitation for actions for contempt-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. ( 11 ) IN the present case, the contempt is alleged to have been committed in October / November, 1992. ( 12 ) NO peculiar circumstances have been brought to the notice of this Court to persuade it to direct for issuance of notices on the Contempt Petition to the opposite parties now after a lapse of more than 11 years, since the alleged commission of contempt by the opposite parties in october / November, 1992. ( 13 ) IN the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Contempt Petition has become infructuous, and the same is liable to be dismissed as such. ( 14 ) THE Contempt Petition is accordingly dismissed as having become infructuous. . .