IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.595 of 2008 DHARNIDHAR SINGH Versus R.J.M.PILLAI & ORS ----------- For the appellant: Mr. R.K.Ranjan For the respondents : None --- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --- Dated, the 12th September, 2008 This appeal is liable to be dismissed being time barred as well as not maintainable. 2. Although, the application (IA. No.4670 of 2008) has been made for condonation of delay, the long delay of more than one year and one hundred eight days is not sufficiently explained in the application. Besides that, as indicated above, the appeal from the impugned order, whereby the contempt application has been dismissed, is not maintainable under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 3. The counsel for the appellant relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. and others vs. Chunilal Nanda and others, (2006) 5 SCC 3999. 4. In the light of the ratio of the said judgment itself, 2 this appeal is not maintainable. The legal provision was summarized in para -11 of the repot. It reads thus: The position emerging from these decisions, in regard to appeals against orders in contempt orders in contempt proceedings may be summarized thus: I. An appeal under Section 19 is maintainable only against an order or decision of the High Court passed in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, that is, an order imposing punishment for contempt. II. Neither an order declining to initiate proceedings for contempt, nor an order initiating proceedings for contempt nor an order dropping the proceedings for contempt nor an order acquitting or exonerating the contemnor, is appealable under Section 19 of the CC Act. In special circumstances, they may be open to challenge under Article 136 of the Constitution. III. In a proceeding for contempt, the High Court can decide whether any contempt of court has been committed, and if so, what should be the punishment and matters incidental thereto. In such a proceeding, it is not appropriate to adjudicate or decide any issue relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties. IV. Any direction issued or decision made b y the High Court on the merits of a dispute between the parties, will not be in the exercise of “jurisdiction to punish for contempt” and, therefore, not appealable under Section 19 of the CC Act. The only exception is where such direction or decision incidental to or inextricably connected with the order punishing for contempt, in which event the appeal under Section 19 of the Act, can also encompass the incidental or inextricably connected directions. V. If the High Court, for whatsoever reason, decides an issue or makes any direction, relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties, in a contempt proceedings, the aggrieved person is not without remedy. Such an order is open to challenge in an intra-court appeal (if the order was of a learned Single Judge and there is a provision for an intra – court appeal), or by seeking special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India (in other cases).” 5. The present case is covered by Clause I of paragraph - 3 11 and appeal is not maintainable. 6. Letters patent appeal is dismissed accordingly. R. M. Lodha, CJ. Kishore K. Mandal, J. Neyaz/