An appeal under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act only lies from an order of the High Court exercising its jurisdiction to punish for contempt; dismissal of a contempt application is not subject to appeal.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Gavendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record.

2. Present appeal has been filed under Section 19 (1) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 challenging the order dated 3.3.2025 passed by the Contempt Court in Contempt Application (Civil) No. 901 of 2025 (Rakesh Kumar Sharma and others vs. Shri Ramjan Baksh), whereby the contempt application has been dismissed.

3. For the sake of clarity the impugned order dated 3.3.2025 is quoted as under:-

"The present contempt application has been filed pleading willful disobedience of the order dated 22.12.2010 passed by this Court in Writ-C No. 74537 of 2010.

The averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the contempt application do not indicate any willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court inasmuch as there is no delivery of possession during the consolidation proceedings.

The records annexed with the affidavit only disclose that title proceedings are going on between the parties.

The contempt application is dismissed."

4. On being confronted with maintainability of the present appeal, on the last date learned counsel for the appellants sought time to prepare the matter.

5. Today, addressing the Court on the maintainability of the present appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as the impugned order decision has not been passed in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt by the High Court, learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Mahboob S. Allibhoy @ another 1996(4) SCC 411 to contend that the appeal would be maintainable.

6. We find that the reliance placed on the aforesaid judgment is patently misconceived inasmuch as in the said order itself in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-

"3. The preliminary question which has to be examined as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case an appeal is maintainable against an order dropping the proceeding for contempt. It is well settled that an appeal is a creature of a statute. Unless a statute provides for an appeal and specifies the order against which an appeal can be filed, no appeal can be filed or entertained as a matter of right or course. Section 19 of the Act says:

“19. Appeals - (1) An appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt -

(a) where the order or decision is that of a single Judge, to a Bench of not less than two Judges of the Court;

(b) where the order or decision is that of a Bench, to the Supreme Court: Provided that where the order or decision is that of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner in any Union Territory, such appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court.

(2) Pending any appeal, the appellate Court may order that -

(a) the execution of the punishment or order appealed against be suspended;

(b) if the appellant is in confinement, he be released on bail; and (c) the appeal be heard notwithstanding that the appellant has not purged his contempt.

(3) Where any person aggrieved by any order against which an appeal may be filed satisfies the High Court that he intends to prefer an appeal the High Court may also exercise all or any of the powers conferred by sub-section (2).

(4) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed (a) in the case of an appeal to a Bench of the High Court, within thirty days;

(b) in the case of an appeal to the Supreme Court, within sixty days, from the date of the order appealed against.

On a plain reading Section 19 provides that an appeal shall lie as of ri