Intra-court appeal is not maintainable against an order passed by a Single Judge in contempt jurisdiction.

The appellant, Smt. Priya Chouhan, filed a Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the CPC challenging an order dated 19.12.2023 passed by a Single Judge in Contempt Petition No. 4207/2023.

The underlying dispute involved an alleged violation of an injunction order passed by a Co-operative Court.

The Single Judge, while hearing the contempt petition, accepted the unqualified apology tendered by the respondents and closed the proceedings without imposing punishment.

The appellant contended that since the matter originated from a violation of an injunction (akin to Order 39 Rule 2A CPC), the appeal was maintainable despite being registered as a contempt case.

1. Whether an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the CPC is maintainable against an order passed by a Single Judge in the exercise of contempt jurisdiction.

2. Whether an intra-court appeal lies against a contempt order where no punishment has been imposed, in light of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.

The court applied Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which mandates that an appeal lies as of right only against orders or decisions of the High Court exercising jurisdiction to punish for contempt.

The court relied on the precedent Midnapore Peoples’ Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda (2006) 5 SCC 399, establishing that appeals are limited to orders affecting the merits or imposing punishment.

The court invoked Section 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, which bars intra-court appeals in specific jurisdictions, and the principle of judicial discipline as reiterated in Mary Pushpam v. Telvi Curuswamy.

The Court reasoned that the appellant's attempt to categorize the impugned order under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC was legally flawed because the Single Judge explicitly exercised contempt jurisdiction, not substantive powers under the CPC.

The court noted that once a matter is entertained as a contempt petition, remedies are strictly governed by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Applying Section 19 of the Act, the Court observed that since no punishment was imposed and the proceedings were closed upon an apology, no statutory right of appeal exists.

The Court held that a Coordinate Bench cannot sit in appeal over the decision of another Bench of equal strength, as it would violate judicial propriety.

The Court also dismissed the argument regarding a "procedural vacuum" for Co-operative Court injunction violations, affirming that High Court proceedings in such matters are treated under contempt jurisdiction.

It ruled that no appeal lies under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act when punishment is not imposed, and intra-court appeals are barred by Section 4 of the Adhiniyam of 2005.

The appeal was dismissed, with the Court clarifying that any remaining remedy for the appellant lies elsewhere in accordance with law.