Bhawani Singh, A C. J.—Since common question of law is involved in these cases, we propose to deal with them simultaneously. However, we set out the facts contained in Contempt Appeal (Civil) No, 5 of 1993, Kundan Ram v Darshan, being the principal case in which the questions for determination have been framed.

2. The appellant was locked in civil litigation with the respondent. Before the Sub-Judge I —Class (I), Karsog, undertaking was given where by the respondent undertook not to obstruct the flow of water into the fields of the appellant and in case he failed to abide by the undertaking, he would render himself liable for Contempt of Court. The undertaking was accepted by the Court and the suit of the appellant was dismissed as withdrawn. The respondent did not abide by the undertaking. He obstructed the flow of water into the land of the appellant resulting in loss to him. The undertaking given by the respondent was brought to his notice but no attention was paid to it Rather, it was stated by the respondent that he did not bother about the contempt proceedings that may be initiated against him.

3. Accordingly, in the aforesaid background, contempt petition was preferred by the appellant under section 2 (B) read with section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which was ultimately dismissed by the Chief Justice by order dated July 16, 1993 (Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 47 of 1993). This order is intended to be assailed by way of this appeal on number of grounds with which we are not presently concerned. Notice of this appeal was given to the opposite side. Objection as to the maintainability of this appeal has been taken on the ground that since the respondent has not been punished and notice discharged, no appeal is maintainable. Similar question arises in other cases connected with this appeal. On December 16, 1993, we requested the learned Advocate General and other prominent lawyers of this Court to assist us in examining this question. We also framed the following circumstances : (a) When a complaint, bringing to the notice of the Court commission of contempt by a party, is dismissed without issuance of notice to the opposite side ; (b) When notice is issued, case tried3 complaint dismissed and notice discharged.

4. It was contended by the learned Advocate General that right of appeal has to be created under the statute. It is available only to the extent provided thereunder and no appeal can be competently preferred under the Letters Patent. In face of this situation, no appeal is competent under either of the circumstances mentioned above. It was also submitted that in this regard there would be no difference whether contempt is of civil or criminal nature since right of appeal is available in cases provided under section 19 of the Act. The matter stands concluded by series of decisions rendered by the apex Court. Shri K. D, Sood also supported this line of thought.

5. From the opposite side, Shri Deepak Gupta, Shri Rajiv Sharma, Shri Shrawan Dogra and Shri Ajay Sharma submitted that apart from cases covered under section 19 of the Act, remedy by way of appeal is available under the Letters Patent which makes no difference in the nature of contempt involved. Learned Counsel also contended that the apex Court has not finally decided a case of civil contempt where the aggrieved party has a Its with the other party and is aggrieved by the violation of the Court order independently of the fact that the dignity of the Court is also involved and all the cases on which reliance has been placed by the other side, are of criminal nature. Respective sides placed certain decisions for our consideration in support of their pleas. We proceed to consider some of them.

6. In Baradakanta v. Justice Misra, C. J., AIR 1974 SC 2255, it was held that (p. 2260) : “........The exercise of contempt jurisdiction being a matter entirely between the Court and the alleged contemner, the Court, though moved by a motion or reference, ma