S. Rajeswaran, J.

1. The above contempt appeal has been filed by the appellant u/S. 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, against the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Cont. P. No. 724/2013 dated 31.10.2013. At the time of numbering this petition, the Registry raised a question on maintainability of the petition and returned the papers to the learned counsel for the petitioner with an endorsement which is as follows:--

"How the contempt appeal SR. 110103/2013 is maintainable as there is no order of punishment."

While complying with the returns, the learned counsel for the petitioner represented by endorsing the following:

"Appeal lies u/S. 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act."

However, section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act states that an appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of High Court to punish for contempt whereas, the contempt petition was closed by the learned single Judge with an order that no contempt was made out. Further, the learned single Judge had left it open to the respondents to complete the formalities with regard to the promotion and placement above the Juniors. But, the learned counsel for the appellant insisted that cont