1. Uniformly, the Supreme Court has been taking the view that under Sec.19 Contempt of Courts Act, an appeal could be preferred only if the High Court has exercised its jurisdiction to punish for contempt which was interpreted by the Supreme court as punishing the contemner finding him guilty. Learned counsel sought to distinguish the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1974 SC 2255 : (1975 Cri LJ 1), AIR 1978 SC 1014 : (1978 Cri LJ 772), and (1988) 3 SCC 26 on the grounds that these related to (1) criminal case and (2) dismissal of an application for punishing the contemner at the notice state itself. We are of the view that no distinction can be made whether the petition is dismissed without hearing the respondent or whether it is dismissed after hearing the respondent. In both the cases, as held by the Supreme Court, the Court does not exercise its power to punish and therefore, no appeal lies, Sec.19 also does not make any distinction between a criminal and civil contempt. It relates to every order made by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. Therefore, the appeal is not maintainable and is dismissed.