Intra-court appeal against order in contempt proceedings is not maintainable absent any adjudication on merits.

The appellant challenged an order dated 15.04.2026 passed by a learned Single Judge in a contempt petition [CONT.CAS(C) 613/2026].

The contempt petition was filed by Respondent No.3 to enforce a 2022 writ court order directing the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to act against unauthorized construction.

The appellant’s previous appeals against the demolition order had been dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal-MCD and the Principal District and Sessions Judge.

The appellant's request for interim relief in a pending challenge [CM(M) 1414/2023] was rejected by a Single Judge, and a subsequent Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court was withdrawn on 05.06.2026.

The appellant filed this intra-court appeal (LPA) against the contempt court’s observation that demolition action should be taken to its "logical conclusion".

1. Whether the Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against an order passed by a Single Judge in contempt proceedings that merely notices statements of fact and directs implementation of previous orders.

2. Whether the appellant can collaterally stay a demolition order through an LPA after failing to obtain interim relief in substantive proceedings.

The court primarily applied the doctrine established by the Supreme Court in Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda (2006) 5 SCC 399, which dictates that an intra-court appeal is not maintainable against an order in a contempt petition unless it decides a jurisdictional issue or a merit-based right between the parties.

The court also applied the principle of finality of administrative action under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, following the exhaustion of statutory remedies under Section 347D.

The Court reasoned that the impugned order dated 15.04.2026 did not contain any fresh findings or adjudicate upon the merits of the dispute between the MCD and the appellant.

The Single Judge merely recorded the MCD's statement regarding the scheduled demolition and directed police assistance, which the Division Bench characterized as being "only in aid of implementing the order passed by writ Court" in 2022.

The Court observed that since the appellant had already exhausted his remedies before the Appellate Tribunal, the District Judge, and had been denied interim relief by both a Single Judge (in substantive proceedings) and the Supreme Court, the current LPA was a "collateral attempt" to bypass those failures.

Under the Midnapore precedent, the lack of a merit-based finding in the contempt order rendered the LPA legally non-maintainable.

The Court condoned the 13-day delay in filing but dismissed the appeal and all pending applications. The MCD's demolition action was permitted to proceed as per the prior orders.