S. P. MEHROTRA, J. The present contempt petition has been filed under Sections 10/12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is, inter alia, prayed in the contempt petition that the opposite party Nos. 1 to 6 be punished for having committed contempt of this Court by wilful and deliberate disobedience of the stay order dated 24-8-1992 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. Nil of 1992, Ganesh and others v. Deputy Director Consolidation, Gorakhpur and others. 2. A perusal of the averments made in the affidavit accompanying the contempt petition shows that the contempt petition was filed on the ground of the alleged non-compliance of the stay order dated 24-8- 1992 passed in the aforesaid Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. Nil of 1992. Copy of the said stay order dated 24-8-1992 has been filed as Annexure-1 to the affidavit accompanying the contempt petition. The said stay order is quoted below: "issue notice. Till further orders of this Court operation of the impugned order dated 31-7-1992 shall remain stayed. " The present contempt petition was filed on 9-12-1992. 3. By the order dated 14-12-1992 passed on the contempt petition, this Court directed as follows: "the applicants counsel prays for and is granted a weeks time for filing the order dated 31-7-1992 impugned in the writ petition, the operation of which has been stayed. List it on 21st of December, 1992. " 4. On 22-12-1992, this Court passed the following order on the contempt petition: "vees cegkeoceew keer meteer Hegvejeref#ele keer pee egkeer nw~ eeleea keer Deefoejeee cenesoe GHeefmlele vener nw~ leovegmeej efoveebke 07-01-93 kees meteerye nes~" 5. A perusal of the ordersheet shows that no order was passed thereafter on the contempt petition. 6. It is, thus, evident that no notice has so far been issued to the opposite parties on the contempt petition. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by issuing notices to the opposite parties now after a lapse of about 12 years since the filing of the contempt petition in the year 1992. 7. There is one more aspect of the matter. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 lays down as follows: "20. 7. There is one more aspect of the matter. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 lays down 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. " 8. In the present case, contempt is alleged to have been committed by the opposite parties in the year 1992. In view of the aforesaid provisions of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 it is not permissible for this Court to initiate any proceedings for contempt against the opposite parties now after a lapse of about 12 years since the alleged commission of contempt by the opposite parties. 9. In view of the aforesaid, the contempt petition is liable to be dismissed as having become infructuous, and the same is accordingly dismissed. Contempt Petition dismissed. .