(J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.)
Harish Kumar Kathuria and Another ________________ Appellant(s);
v.
Sanjay Gupta and Others _________________________ Respondent(s).
Civil Appeal No………..of 2026 [@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5753 of 2024]§, decided on September 7, 2026
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
Leave granted.
2. The appellants, the contemnor before the learned Single Judge of the High Court is aggrieved with the rejection of the appeal, finding no cause to entertain the appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, since there is no punishment imposed on the contemnor by the order impugned in the appeal.
3. We heard Ms. Vagisha Kochar, for the appellants and Sri Raghenth Basant, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, who is the applicant before the learned Single Judge.
4. Learned Single Judge has held so in the operative portion of the judgment:
39. In view of the above, this Court holds that respondents/contemnors are guilty of violating the directions contained in order dated 08.07.2021. They are accordingly held guilty of committing Contempt of Court under Sections 2(b), read with Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
40. At this stage, it has been put to the respondents/contemnors as to whether they are willing to purge their contempt by handing over the possession of the basement of the suit property to the plaintiffs.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellants relies on Ajay Kumar Bhalla v. Prakash Kumar Dixit1 to contend that if not an appeal under Section 19 of the Act of 1971, an intracourt appeal (Letters Patent Appeal) would be maintainable, since the learned Single Judge has not only found contempt but also directed handing over possession of the basement of the suit property to the plaintiffs. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, however, refuted the said submission and pointed out that the learned Single Judge had merely granted an opportunity to the contemnor to purge himself of the contempt.
6. Ajay Kumar Bhalla1 was a case in which the learned Single Judge found that the contemnors are guilty of contempt and also that the respondent therein was entitled to promotion to the rank of I.G. This Court relying on Midnapore Peoples’ Coop Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda2 held that the finding with respect to the guilt of the contemnors though not amenable to an appeal under Section 19, the finding with respect to the entitlement to promotion would be amendable to an appeal as held by this Court in Midnapore Peoples’ Coop Bank Ltd.2.
7. We think it apposite to notice paragraph 11 (V) from Midnapore Peoples’ Coop Bank Ltd.2:
“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).”
8. As has been held in Ajay Kumar Bhalla1, though the finding of guilt may not be amendable to an appeal under Section 19, the opportunity granted to purge the contempt, effectively is a direction to hand over possession of the basement to the plaintiff. It is admitted by both parties that as of now the basement has been handed over, but as the appellants put it, under protest and subject to the final decision in the appeal.
9. Going by the aforesaid binding precedent of this Court in Midnapore Peoples’ Coop Bank Ltd.2 though an appeal under Section 19 of the Act would not be maintainable, an intra court appeal would definitely be maintainable.
10. In the above circumstances, we set aside the order impugned and restore the appeal to the files of the High Court. The same shall be considered as an intra-court appeal from the order of the learned Single Judge. In the meanwhile, we request the learned Single Judge to not precipitate the contempt proceedings, till the appeal is disposed of.
11. The Appeal is disposed of without any observation on the merits of the matter.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
———
1 (2024) 12 SCC 159
2 (2006) 5 SCC 399
§ 2026 INSC 966
