1 IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3499 OF 2009 IN APPEAL (Stamp) NO.569 of 2009 IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO.88 OF 2007 1.Smt.Laxmi Dattaram Pawar & Anr. ...Appellants vs. Smt.Jyoti Pradeep Pawar. ...Respondent --- Mr.R.B.Singh, for Appellants. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA,JJ. DATED: 9th June, 2010 P.C.: 1. This notice of motion is taken out for condonation of delay in filing appeal against the order dated 16.6.2009 passed in Notice of Motion No.1538 of 2009 in Contempt Petition no.88 of 2 2007. Perusal of that order shows that by that order the Court has disposed of the contempt petition. In short, the Court has discharged the alleged contemner. Therefore, under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, appeal will not lie. The learned Counsel relied on two judgments viz. (i) Savitri Sippy vs. Shashikant Ghorpade & Ors, 2009(4) Mh.L.J. 376 and (ii) Clough Engineering Ltd., Australia Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation, Mumbai, 2009(3) Mh.L.J. 553 to contend that an appeal lies against the order issuing direction in exercise of contempt jurisdiction. The submission is not well founded. The Division Bench in both the Judgments have held that the order must be made in exercise of jurisdiction of the Court to punish for contempt. If ultimately the order passed in the contempt petition is of discharge then no appeal lies against any order by which the contemner is discharged. Then reading of Section 19 of the Act makes the position clear beyond any doubt. 3 2. When the appeal itself does not lie under Section 19 of the Act, then there is no question of condoning any delay for taking out the appeal. The notice of motion is, therefore, disposed of. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA,J.) ...