IMPORTANT POINT
An appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, is maintainable against any order in contempt proceedings, not just punitive orders.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior counsel for the appellant assisted by Sri Abhinava Krishna Srivastava and Sri K.R. Singh alongwith Sri Rahul Chaudhary, for the contempt applicant.

2. This contempt appeal is directed against an order passed by the learned Contempt Court dated 14.3.2024, holding the appellant guilty of contempt of an order passed by this Court on 12.12.2017 in Writ-B No. 59193 of 2017. The order passed by the contemnor dated 18.7.2022 is held to be in deliberate disobedience of the Writ Court's order. The matter has been directed to be listed on 23.4.2024 for framing of charge against the appellant.

3. An objection is taken, at the outset, to the maintainability of this appeal by Shri K.R. Singh, appearing for the applicant/respondent, who submits that the appeal under Section 19 of the Act of 1971 would be maintainable only against an order of punishment and not otherwise. He submits that the Contempt Court has only passed an order for framing of charge against which the appeal would not lie.

4. In order to deal with the issue of maintainability of appeal, it would be necessary to refer to some of the basic facts. It transpires that one Arjun Dev Kehar instituted an Original Suit No. 414 of 1991 for injunction against the Kanpur Development Authority in respect of the subject-matter of suit property. This suit was decreed on 3.10.1996. The operative portion of the judgement of the trial Court reads as under :

5. The aforesaid decree of the trial Court has attained finality with dismissal of first appeal; second appeal as well as SLP before the Supreme Court on 7.3.2008. It is thereafter that an application was moved for mutation by the plaintiff, which was allowed. Name of Arjun Dev Kehar was duly recorded. It is alleged that the plots, which were subject-matter of injunction granted by the Civil Court were then purchased by a company and its name was also mutated. The mutation entry in favour of the plaintiff and the transferee was challenged in a revision before the Board of Revenue under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act with the delay of 9 years. This revision has been dismissed on 17.10.2017. The order of rejection of revision came to be challenged by the Kanpur Development Authority in Writ-B No. 59193 of 2017. This Court dismissed the writ petition on 12.12.2017, after noticing the basic facts and the controversy raised before this Court. For the sake of convenience, we deem it appropriate to reproduce the order passed by the Writ Court dismissing the writ :

''Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that one Arjun Dev, predecessor in interest of respondents 4 and 5, instituted an Original Suit No. 414 of 1991 against the petitioner - Kanpur Development Authority (in short KDA) for permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain KDA from demolishing the constructions of the plaintiff existing over plot Nos. 1104, 1105, 1107, 1110, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1115, 1106, 1109, 1116 and 1280 (fully described in the plaint) and not to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's case was that since the time of his ancestor he was in possession on the basis of zamindari patta of the year 1942 and that the defendant without any right had issued demolition notice. The defendant contested the suit by claiming that the land had been acquired vide award dated 30.12.1968; that possession was obtained much earlier by Nagar Mahapalika, which was subsequently transferred to KDA and that plaintiff had no right.

By judgment and decree dated 3.10.1996, the Court of 3rd Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Kanpur Nagar decreed plaintiff's suit. While deciding the suit it had framed number of issues. Issue No. 2 was in respect of possession and title of the plaintiff whereas Issue No. 5 was as to whether the disputed land was acquired under award dated 30.12.1968. Both the issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff and it was specifically held that the defendant had failed to prove that the di