AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanjay Yadav, J
This appeal under Section 2(1) of The Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, is directed against the order dated 18.08.2020 passed in Contempt Case No.708/2020. Office has raised objection as to its maintainability of the appeal. Sub-Section (1) of Section 2 of the Adhiniyam, 2005, stipulates that-
"2(1)- An appeal shall lie from a Judgment or order passed by one Judge of the High Court in exercise of original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to a Division Bench comprising of two judges of the same High Court:
Provided that no such appeal shall lie against an interlocutory order or against an order passed in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India."
An order passed in Contempt Case directing the Contemnors to appear and explain as to the manner in which the order giving rise to contempt proceeding has been complied with cannot be construed to be an order passed in exercise of original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Reliance placed on the decision in Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. vs. Chunillar Nanda & Others: (2006) 5 SCC 399, more particularly paragraph 11(v) thereof wherein it is held-
"11. (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)."
-is of no assistance; even decision in ECL Finance Limited vs. Harikishan Shankarji Gudipati and others: (2018) 13 SCC 142, is of no assistance because learned Single Judge has not decided any issue on merit as would give rise for an occasion to file this Appeal under Section 2(1) of Adhiniyam 2005.
Consequently, the objection as to maintainability of Appeal is upheld.
Writ Appeal stands dismissed as not tenable. No costs.