JUDGMENT :

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

CM APPL. 36809/2026 (for exemption)

2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of.

CM APPL. 36653/2026 (for modification)

3. The present application has been filed by the Appellant under Section 151 of CPC seeking modification of the order dated 27th March, 2026 passed by this Court.

4. By way of the said order dated 27th March, 2026, this Court had come to the conclusion that the appeal filed by the Appellant was not maintainable at that stage and was premature in nature, as the ld. Single Judge vide the impugned order dated 6th September, 2022 and 10th February, 2026 passed in CONT. CAS (C). 428/2016 titled ‘Ravinder Kaur v. Mamta Anand & Anr. had held that the Appellants were guilty of contempt. However, no sentence was awarded and the matter is still pending before the ld. Single Judge for determining the quantum of punishment.

5. The submission of ld. Counsel for the Appellant today is that the said order dated 27th March, 2026 deserves to be modified as a Coordinate Bench of this Court in R.K. Yadav Through Director of Income Tax Inv-II & others Vs. Dinesh Kumar in Cont. App. (C) No.2/2025 has taken into consideration the decision of the Supreme Court in Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda, (2006) 5 SCC 399 and the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Sarojini Nagar Jhuggi Jhopri Vikas Samiti v. Suresh Kumar, 2022 SCC Online Del 3669 to hold that an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, is maintainable if an order records the guilt of the Contemnor or punishment thereof.

6. This Court has, in the past, had the occasion to consider the judgment in Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. (supra) repeatedly in CONT.APP.(C) 7/2026 titled Dalbir Singh Yadav & Ors. v. Rajdarbar Heritage Ventures Ltd. and in CONT.APP.(C) 2/2026 titled Raghunath Singh & Ors. v. Chetan Prakash Jain & Anr.

7. The findings of this Court in its decision dated 10th February, 2026 in Dalbir Singh Yadav (supra), is as under:

“15. The law on the aspect of maintainability of an appeal against orders passed in contempt petitions is well settled. The Supreme Court in Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. (Supra) has held that appeals under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 would be maintainable only against an order imposing punishment for contempt. The relevant portion of the said decision reads as under:

“10. Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (“the CC Act” for short) provides for appeals. Relevant portion of sub-section (1) thereof is extracted below:

“19. (1) An appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of the 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:”

The scope of Section 19 has been considered by this Court in Baradakanta Mishra v. Justice Gatikrushna Misra [(1975) 3 SCC 535 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 99 : AIR 1974 SC 2255] , Purshotam Dass Goel v. Justice B.S. Dhillon [(1978) 2 SCC 370 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 195 : AIR 1978 SC 1014] , Union of India v. Mario Cabral e Sa [(1982) 3 SCC 262 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 10 : AIR 1982 SC 691] , D.N. Taneja v. Bhajan Lal [(1988) 3 SCC 26 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 546] , State of Maharashtra v. Mahboob S. Allibhoy [(1996) 4 SCC 411 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 675] and J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar [(1996) 6 SCC 291 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1422] . These cases dealt with orders refusing to initiate contempt proceedings or initiating contempt proceedings or acquitting/exonerating the contemnor or dropping the proceedings for contempt. In all these cases, it was held that an appeal was not maintainable under Section 19 of the CC Act as the said section only provided for an appeal in respect of orders punishing for contempt.

10.1. In Baradakanta Mishra [(1975) 3 SCC 535 : 1975 SCC (Cr