Back
1975 Supreme(SC) 349
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.S. SARKARIA AND A.C. GUPTA, JJ.
Barada Kanta Mishra, Appellant
Versus
Orissa High Court, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 1975
Decided on 15-9-1975.
Headnote:
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 19 - Interlocutory order - Maintainability of proceedings - Having heard the appellant in person for respondent – Court are of opinion that the appeal is not maintainable - Only those orders or decisions in some point is decided or finding is given in exercise of jurisdiction by High Court to punish for contempt, are appellable under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Order in question is not such an order or decision - It is an interlocutory order pertaining purely to the procedure of the Court – Held, Case including one of maintainability of the proceedings would be heard together and it rejected prayer for hearing the case piecemeal first and regard to the question of maintainability - Accordingly we dismiss the appeal - Appeal dismissed
- Appeal against an interlocutory order of the High Court pertaining purely to court procedure is not maintainable under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. [judgement_act_referred] (!)
- Only orders or decisions where some point is decided or a finding is given in exercise of jurisdiction to punish for contempt are appealable under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. [judgement_act_referred] (!)
- An order directing that all points arising in the case, including maintainability of proceedings, be heard together, and rejecting a prayer for piecemeal hearing on maintainability first, qualifies as a purely procedural interlocutory order. (!)
- Appeal dismissed as not maintainable; consequent stay vacated. (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
ORDER :—Having heard the appellant in person and Mr. F. S. Nariman for the respondent, we are of opinion that the appeal is not maintainable. Only those orders or decisions in which some point is decided or finding is given in the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court to punish for contempt, are appellable under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The order in question is not such an order or decision. It is an interlocutory order pertaining purely to the procedure of the Court. All that the order in question says is that all the points arising in the case, including the one of maintainability of the proceedings, would be heard together and; it rejected Mr. B. Mishra s prayer for hearing the case piecemeal, that is, first and regard to the question of maintainability. Accordingly we dismiss the appeal. The stay in consequence, stands, vacated.
Appeal dismissed.
For Citation : AIR 1976 SC 1206
