S. P. MEHROTRA, J. The present contempt petition purporting to be under Sections 10/12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been filed by the petitioners/applicants. It is, inter alia prayed that the opposite party Nos. 1 to 5 be prosecuted and punished for having committed contempt of this Court by flouting the orders dated 6-5-1988 and 14-2-1990 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8280 of 1988, Waqf Haji Abdul Hafiz Khan and others v. VII Additional District Judge, Agra and others. 2. The present contempt petition was filed on 5-5-1993. 3. On 6-5-1993, this Court passed the following order on the contempt petition: "list in July, 1993. The petitioners Counsel states that in the meanwhile he will initiate appropriate proceedings to challenge the order dated 27-4-1993. " 4. A perusal of the record including the order sheet of the contempt petition shows that even though the case was thereafter, put up before the Court on a few dates, but no order was passed on the contempt petition. 5. It is, thus, 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. 6. 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 May, 1993. 7. There is yet another aspect of the matter. 8. 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. " 9. In the present case, as per the averments made in paragraph12 of the affidavit accompanying the contempt petition, the contempt is alleged to have been committed by the opposite parties in April, 1993. " 9. In the present case, as per the averments made in paragraph12 of the affidavit accompanying the contempt petition, the contempt is alleged to have been committed by the opposite parties in April, 1993. 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 11 years since the alleged commission of contempt by the opposite parties in April, 1993. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the contempt petition is liable to be dismissed as having become infructuous, and the same is accordingly dismissed as such. Petition dismissed. .