Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court

"Section 20 Bars Contempt After One Year – Petition Filed Four Years Later Is Hopelessly Time-Barred", In a significant ruling on the scope of civil contempt jurisdiction, the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) on 16 February 2026 dismissed a contempt petition alleging breach of an interim injunction protecting possession over agricultural land. Justice Y. G. Khobragade held that “mere entry into the land and assault, without proof of willful and intentional disobedience of the injunction order, is insufficient to constitute civil contempt.” The Court further ruled that the petition was “hopelessly barred by limitation” under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

The Court dismissed the petition on two principal grounds: absence of proof of willful disobedience and limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

The petitioner, original plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 584 of 1995, had sought a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession over agricultural land situated at village Gondegaon, Taluka and District Jalna.

On 30 December 2004, the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalna decreed the suit in his favour and restrained the defendants from disturbing his possession. However, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2005, the First Appellate Court on 5 October 2006 set aside the decree and dismissed the suit.

Aggrieved, the petitioner filed Second Appeal No. 141 of 2007 before the High Court along with Civil Application No. 1466 of 2007 seeking interim protection. On 14 October 2008, the High Court granted “Interim relief in terms of prayer clause (C),” thereby restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful possession pending the appeal.

The present contempt petition was filed alleging that on 28 May 2021, during the subsistence of the injunction, the respondents entered the land, abused and assaulted the petitioner and attempted to dispossess him.

The principal legal questions before the Court were:

Whether the respondents had willfully and intentionally disobeyed the interim injunction dated 14 October 2008.

Whether the contempt petition was maintainable in view of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which prescribes a limitation period of one year.

The petitioner relied upon affidavits of witnesses and FIR No. 232 of 2021 to contend that the respondents had interfered with possession and thereby violated the Court’s order.

However, the Court noted that the affidavits merely stated that on 28 May 2021, the respondents entered the field, abused and assaulted the petitioner and his family members. Crucially, the affidavits did not indicate that the petitioner was dispossessed or that possession had changed hands.

Justice Khobragade observed that “it is not in dispute that, as on today, the petitioner is in possession of the land.” The Court further noted that neither the FIR nor the affidavits revealed that the respondents had taken over possession of the land.

The Court clarified that “mere entry of the respondents into suit land on 28.05.2021 and abusement in filthy language, assault to the petitioner and his family members does not itself establish that, the respondents have willfully disobeyed the order dated 14.10.2008.”

Importantly, the Court emphasised that the injunction restrained interference with possession. In the absence of material demonstrating actual dispossession or an overt act directly violating the mandate of the order, contempt jurisdiction could not be invoked.

Willful Disobedience – An Indispensable Requirement

The Court relied upon the Supreme Court decision in Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh, AIR 2002 SC 1405, which held that “mere disobedience of an order of the court may not be sufficient to amount to civil contempt… Element of willingness is indispensable requirement.”

Applying this principle, the High Court concluded that the petitioner had failed to establish “willful or intentional disobedience” of the injunction order.

The Court reiterated that contempt jurisdiction is penal in nature and must be exercised with caution. In the absence of clear, deliberate, and intentional violation, the drastic remedy of contempt cannot be invoked.

Limitation Under Section 20 – Petition Filed After Four Years

Apart from merits, the Court found the petition barred by limitation.

Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act mandates that no court shall initiate contempt proceedings after the expiry of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.

The alleged incident occurred on 28 May 2021. However, the contempt petition was filed on 25 February 2025 — more than four years later.

The Court categorically held that “no action under the Contempt of Courts Act can be initiated after expiry of period of one year from the date of willful disobedience.”

Justice Khobragade observed that even assuming the respondents had tried to dispossess the petitioner on 28 May 2021, the petition instituted after more than four years was “hopelessly barred by limitation.”

In the absence of any satisfactory explanation for the delay, the Court held the petition not maintainable.

The Bombay High Court dismissed the contempt petition, holding that the essential ingredient of willful disobedience was not established and that the proceedings were barred by limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

The ruling reinforces two fundamental principles governing civil contempt: first, that clear and intentional breach of a court’s order must be proved; and second, that proceedings must be initiated within the statutory limitation period of one year.

Date of Decision: 16 February 2026