(1) lpa301-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 301 OF 2011 IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 433 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 7310 OF 2010 Mr. D.H. Dawal APPELLANT VERSUS Balu Baliram Suryawanshi & others RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. S.S. Deve, advocate for the appellant. Mr. Atul M. Karad, advocate holding for Mr. Suresh W. Munde, advocate for Respondent No. 1. ..... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 16th NOVEMBER, 2011 ORAL ORDER: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of maintainability of Letters Patent Appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute that insofar as the provisions of Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are concerned, the present appeal would not be tenable and as such, we need not go into that question. The learned (2) lpa301-11 counsel submits, however, that the interlocutory order is appealable in view of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. We would, therefore, be required to consider only the question as to whether present appeal would be tenable in view of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 3. The appellant basically challenges two orders passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act. The first order dated 12th October, 2011 is only to the effect that the present appellant, who is Respondent No. 22 in the said Contempt Petition, is permitted to file an Affidavit- in-Reply to the Contempt Petition; however, only on the condition of depositing costs of Rs. 25,000/-. The second order dated 19th October, 2011 reads thus : " Heard. 2. Though, opportunities granted to respondent No. 22 from time to time, respondent No. 22 has not shown any inclination to comply with the order passed (3) lpa301-11 by the Division Bench of this Court in its true spirit and letter. In spite of opportunities granted to the respondent No. 22 by adjourning the matter since 21st September, 2011 to 12th October, 2011, respondent No. 22 has not filed further affidavit in reply stating therein that, under relevant provision of law, which documents can be given to the petitioner. In spite of detailed order dated 12th October, 2011 till this date, no reply is filed by the respondent No. 22. 3. In the aforesaid background, issue show cause notice to respondent No. 22 in the Form-I Rule 9 Chapter 34 of the High Court Appellate Side Rules. If respondent No. 22 wishes to file reply to the show cause notice, he can do so on or before 15.11.2011. 4. List the matter on 18.11.2011." 4. It can thus be seen from the perusal of the said order that the learned Single Judge has passed the said order after noticing that inspite of granting various opportunities, the present appellant has failed to comply with the order passed by the Court and has not filed any reply. In that view of (4) lpa301-11 the matter, the learned Single Judge found it expedient to issue the show-cause notice to the present appellant who is Respondent No. 22 in the Contempt Petition, in Form-I Rule 9 of Chapter 34 of the High Court Appellate Side Rules. Not only that, the learned Single Judge has given an opportunity to the present appellant to file reply to the show-cause notice if he desires to do so on or before 15th November, 2011. 5. The learned counsel for both the parties heavily rely on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of "Midnapore Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. and others v. Chunilal Nanda and others", reported in AIR 2006 S.C. 2190 (1), in support of their contention that the appeal is tenable on one hand and that the appeal is not tenable on the other hand. The perusal of paragraph 16 of the said Judgement would make the position clear, which reads thus : "16. Interim orders/interlocutory orders passed during the pendency of a case, fall under one or the other of the following categories : (i) Orders which finally decide a question or issue in controversy in the main case. (5) lpa301-11 (ii) Orders which finally decide an issue which materially and directly affects the final decision in the main case. (iii) Orders which finally decide a collateral issue or question which is not the subject matter of the main case. (iv) Routine orders which are passed to facilitate the progress of the case till its culmination in the final judgment. (v) Orders which may cause some inconvenience or some prejudice to a party, but which do not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties. The term 'judgment' occurring in clause 15 of the Letters Patent will take into its fold not only the judgments as defined in section 2(9) CPC and orders enumerated in Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC, but also other orders which, though may not finally and conclusively determine the rights of parties with regard to all or any matters in controversy, may have finality in regard to some collateral matter, which will affect the vital and valuable rights and obligations of the parties. Interlocutory orders which fall under categories (i) to (iii) above, are, therefore, 'judgments' for the purpose of filing appeals under the Letters Patent. On the other hand, orders falling under categories (iv) and (v) are not 'judgments' for purpose of filing appeals provided under the Letters Patent." 6. It can thus be seen that the Apex Court has held that whenever an order finally decides a question or issue in controversy in the main case, or which finally decides an issue which materially and directly affects the final decision in the main case, or when it finally decides a collateral issue or question which is not the subject matter of the main case, the appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent would be tenable. However, whenever the (6) lpa301-11 routine orders are passed to facilitate the progress of the case till its culmination in the final judgement, or the orders which may cause some inconvenience or some prejudice to a party, but which do not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties, the appeal would not be tenable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 7. We are not going into the question as to whether the order which has been passed by the learned Single Judge caused some inconvenience or prejudice to the present appellant. However, the perusal of the order would clearly reveal that it is an order which has been passed by the learned Single Judge only issuing a show-cause notice calling upon the present appellant to show cause as to why an action should not be taken against him. Not only this, the learned Single Judge has given an opportunity to the present appellant to file his affidavit-in-reply, if so desired by him on or before 15th November, 2011. Thus, the order passed by the learned Single Judge clearly falls within Clause (iv) of the categories which have been enumerated by the (7) lpa301-11 Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Midnapore Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. and others v. Chunilal Nanda and others" (supra). In that view of the matter, we find that the present appeal is not tenable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The same is, therefore, dismissed. 8. However, taking into consideration the fact that the present appellant was bonafide prosecuting the present appeal, we extend the period for filing the affidavit-in-reply to the show-cause notice, which was fixed by the learned Single Judge on or before 15th November, 2011, to, on or before 18th November, 2011. 9. In view of dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal, Civil Application No. 13412/2011 does not survive and hence, stands dismissed accordingly. [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.] npj/lpa301-11