Interlocutory Orders Deferring Adjudication of Injunction Vacatur and Issuing Contempt Notices are Not Appealable Judgments

The Appellant challenged an order dated 09.12.2025 passed by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in CS (OS) No. 442/2025

By said order, the Single Judge noted alleged non-compliance of a prior order dated 11.07.2025, issued notice in contempt proceedings against the Appellant, and deferred the hearing of the Appellant’s application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC until compliance was met

The Appellant filed this appeal with a delay of 105 days, citing the pursuit of review proceedings and Supreme Court litigation as the reason for the delay

1. Whether the Appellant disclosed "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to condone the 105-day delay in filing the appeal

2. Whether an order that merely defers an injunction application and issues a contempt notice constitutes an appealable "judgment" under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC read with Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, citing Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji, which requires a "cogent explanation" for delay despite a liberal construction of "sufficient cause"

Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act and Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC, interpreted through Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania, which restricts "judgments" to orders that decide "matters of moment" or affect vital rights rather than purely procedural steps

The principle from Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda, holding that an order merely initiating contempt proceedings is not appealable under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act

The Court first found the delay of 105 days inexcusable, noting that the Appellant failed to provide a satisfactory chronological account of why the appeal could not be filed while other proceedings were pending

On the merits of maintainability, the Court observed that the impugned order did not adjudicate the Order XXXIX Rule 4 application but merely postponed it

It reasoned that since the order did not grant, refuse, or vacate an injunction, it remained "interlocutory and procedural" in character and did not meet the threshold of a "judgment" as defined in Shah Babulal Khimji

the issuance of a contempt notice was held to be a preliminary step that does not determine guilt or impose punishment, thereby precluding an appeal under established contempt jurisprudence

the appeal is not maintainable because the impugned order is a purely procedural interlocutory order that does not qualify as an appealable judgment under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC or Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act

The Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay and the appeal. All pending applications were disposed of accordingly