Basheer, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge in a contempt proceeding initiated under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

2. The primary grievance of the appellant is that the learned Single Judge has travelled far beyond his jurisdiction and made some observations touching upon the merit of the case and also on some facts which were not at all relevant to decide the question whether or not the respondent was liable to be proceeded against under the Contempt of Courts Act.

3. Sri.Jacob Varghese, learned senior counsel who appears for the appellant, submits that the observations and conclusions made by the learned Single Judge in para 2 of the impugned judgment are likely to prejudice the mind of the civil court before which the question of title is pending consideration pursuant to a direction issued by this court in a Civil Revision Petition. The limited prayer of the learned senior counsel is that the above observation in para 2 may be expunged so that the Subordinate Judge's Court, Paravur is free to decide the issue referred to it, in accordance with law.

4. Sri.C.P.Sudhakara Prasad, learned Advocate General who appears for the respondent, submits that the appeal is liable to be dismissed in limine as it is not maintainable at all. He points out that Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, in unambiguous terms, enumerates the instances in which an aggrieved party in a contempt proceeding can institute an appeal against any order or decision of this court. He further submits that none of the clauses contained in Section 19 of the Act will come into play in the case on hand and therefore on that short ground this appeal is liable to be dismissed.

5. The above issue had come up for consideration before the Apex Court as well as this Court on earlier occasions. In Rasheed v. Saji Basheer [2005 (2) KLT 106], a Division Bench of this court has laid down that an order passed by a Single Judge in a contempt proceeding can be challenged under Section 5 of the High Court Act by the contemnor, if the learned Single Judge passes any order adverse to him even while discharging him from the contempt proceeding. It has been further laid down that the Division Bench can, in an appeal under Section 5 of the High Court Act, always intervene if the order passed by a learned Single Judge in a contempt proceeding runs beyond the scope of the order.

6. In Prithawi Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand and Others (2004 (7) SCC 261), their lordships of the Supreme Court have held that in a proceeding initiated under the Contempt of Courts Act, "it would not be permissible for a court to examine the correctness of the earlier decision which had not been assailed and to take a view different than what was taken in the earlier decision". Their lordships further held that the court exercising contempt jurisdiction is primarily concerned with the question of contumacious conduct of the party who has allegedly committed default in complying with the directions in the judgment or order. The court can not traverse beyond the order and it cannot test the correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional direction or delete any direction.

7. This litigation which has now culminated in this appeal has had a chequered history. In the nature of the question that has cropped up in this appeal as regards its maintainability, it is necessary to take a brief look at the history of the litigation.

8. It is on record that in the year 1990, a small extent of land was acquired by the State on a requisition made by the Cochin Shipyard. Late Poulose, the predecessor interest of the appellants, claimed that he was the absolute owner in possession of the said property. However, the contention of the State was that the property did not belong to Sri.Poulose and that it was a puramboke land. At that juncture, Sri.Poulose instituted a civil suit before th