Sr. No. 15 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM No. 3287/2024 in LPA No. 142/2024 Shalin Kabra & ANR. …. Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through:- Mr. Jahingeer A Dar, GA V/s Mohd. Shafi Ganaie & anr. …..Respondent(s) Through:- Mr. Nomaan Shafi, Advocate CORAM:HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AJEEM, JUDGE ORDER 13.08.2025 CM No. 3287/2024 01. This condonation application has been preferred by the applicants seeking 196 days’ delay in filing the above titled Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) against the order/judgment dated 18.09.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in CPSW No. 284/2017 in SWP No. 619/2012. 02. Notice was issued in this application on 06.06.2024 and the respondents have filed their objections to this application. 03. For the reasons stated in the application coupled with the submissions made at Bar and in view of no objection from the other side, sufficient cause for condoning the delay is made out. Application is allowed and 196 days’ delay in filing the above titled LPA is condoned. 2 04. This application is disposed of as such. LPA No. 142/2024 01. This Letters Patent Appeal (for short, ‘LPA’) has been preferred by the appellants against the order dated 18.09.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in CPSW No. 284/2017 in SWP No. 619/2012 titled ‘Mohammad. Shafi Ganai & anr. Vs. Shaleen Kabra & anr’. 02. The petitioners/respondents herein have filed a writ petition i.e., SWP No. 619/2012 which was disposed of vide order dated 06.02.2014 in light of the judgment dated 27.08.2013 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in SWP No. 1775/2006 titled Ram Lal Vs. State of J&K &ors. In Ram Lal’s case, the petitioner claimed benefit of SRO 149 of 1973 as the petitioner is entitled to enhance grade as the petitioner was ITI trained and this grade was awarded to him. This petition was disposed of vide order dated 27.08.2013 with direction to the respondents to accord benefit of SRO 87 of 1968 and SRO 149 of 1973 to the petitioner. 03. The respondents filed an appeal i.e., LPASW No. 10/2014, against SWP No. 619/2013, which was dismissed vide order dated 06.08.2014 and SLP(civil) No. 5411/2014 against the same was also filed in which the Hon’ble Apex Court on 30.03.2015 has held that they are not inclined to entertain this Special Leave Petition, as such, the respondents are at liberty to work out their remedy. A review 3 petition against the same was filed which was also dismissed as withdrawn. The respondents were granted the same benefits in terms of the judgment of Ram Lal’s case. 04. Since the appellants failed to implement the judgment, the respondents filed contempt petition i.e., CPSW No. 284/2017. Thereafter, the appellants considered the claim of the respondents and passed consideration order. Learned writ Court vide order dated 18.09.2023 held that the compliance report filed by the respondents was not inconsonance with the judgment passed by this Court and directed that fresh compliance report be filed positively by next date of hearing. 05. Aggrievedof this, the appellants have filed the present LPA on the ground that they have considered the claim of the petitioners/respondents herein and found that the respondents were not eligible, as such, the same was rejected. The order of the writ Court was complied and, as such, learned writ Court had to drop the contempt proceedings but the impugned order has been passedasking the respondents to pass fresh direction. 06. A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondents with regard to the maintainability of the appeal. It is submitted by the respondents that the appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1997 lies only against the order of punishment of the contempt of Court. 4 Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1997 reads as under:- 19. Appeal. (1) An appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt,- (a) where the order or decision is that of a single judge to a bench of not less than two judges of the court ; (b) where the order of decision is that of abench, to the Supreme Court. (2) Pending any appeal, the Appellate Court may order that- (a) the execution of the punishment or order appealed against be suspended ; - (b) if the appellant is in confinement, he bereleased on bail ; and (c) the appeal be heard notwithstanding that the appellant has not purged his contempt. (3) Where any person aggrieved by any order against, which an appeal may be filed satisfies the High Court that he intends to prefer an appeal High Court may also exercise all or any of the powers conferred by sub- section (2). (4) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed- (a) in the case of an appeal to a Bench of the High Court within thirty days ; (b) in the case of an appeal to the Supreme Court, within sixty days from the date of the order appealed against. 07. Thus, in terms of Section 19 of the Act, the appeal is only against the order of punishment whereas in the present case, the order is only to file fresh compliance report. 08. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Midnapore Peoples’ Cop Bank Ltd. vs. Chunilal Nanda & ors.’, (2006) 5 SCC 399, while taking note of the several decisions rendered on the scope of Section 19(1) of the Act, has held as under:- “11. The position emerging from these decisions, inregard to appeals against orders in contempt proceedings may be summarized thus : I. An appeal under section 19 is maintainable only against an order or decision of the High Court passed in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, that is, an order imposing punishment for contempt. 5 II. Neither an order declining to initiate proceedings for contempt, nor an order initiating proceedings for contempt nor an order dropping the proceedings for contempt nor an order acquitting or exonerating the contemnor, is appealable under Section 19 of the CC Act. In special circumstances, they may be open to challenge under Article 136 of the Constitution. III. In a proceeding for contempt, the High Court can decide whether any contempt of court has been committed, and if so, what should be the punishment and matters incidental thereto. In such a proceeding, it is not appropriate to adjudicate or decide any issue relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties. IV. Any direction issued or decision made by the High Court on the merits of a dispute between the parties, will not be in the exercise of 'jurisdiction to punish for contempt' and therefore, not appealable under section 19 of CC Act. The only exception is where such direction or decision is incidental to or inextricably connected with the order punishing for contempt, in which event the appeal under section 19 of the Act, can also encompass the incidental or inextricably connected directions. 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).” 09. Thus, the order passed by this Court directing the respondents to file fresh compliance report does not fall within Section 19 of the Act. The appellants have enough opportunity to explain their position in terms of the consideration order. 10. This apart, this LPA is only maintainable in terms of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent against the final judgment and not against the interlocutory order which do not decide any right and the order against which the appeal has been filed is an interlocutory order and does not fall within the scope of judgment. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in LPASW No. 02/2018 titled ‘State of J&K and ors. vs. Mohammad Sultan Mir.’, has held that interlocutory and intermediary orders which do not decide the right and 6 not amenable to Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. Relevant paragraph of the judgment is reproduced as under: “09. This takes us to another plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that even if it is assumed that the appeal against the order impugned is not maintainable under Section 19(1) of the Act, yet the same would be maintainable under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. We have given thoughtful consideration to this aspect of the matter also but do not find any merit in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants-State. Clause 12 of the Letters Patent provides for an appeal from a judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in exercise of original jurisdiction to the Division Bench. What would be the judgment in terms of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, has been well explained in series of judgments rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court as well as this Court. The word "Judgment" is undoubtedly a concept of finality in broader sense. The judgment could either be a final judgment, preliminary judgment or intermediary judgment or interlocutory judgment but it would be a judgment only if it decides some issue or right between the parties finally. The intermediary and interlocutory orders passed during the course of the proceedings which do not determine any right or issue between the parties cannot be said to be the judgment amenable to the appellate jurisdiction of the Division Bench under Clause-12 of the Letters Patent. It is not the case of the appellants that by virtue of the order impugned the Contempt Court has issued directions which go beyond the scope of the judgment alleged to be violated by the appellants.” 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the present appeal against the order passed in contempt petition is not maintainable and this appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. (SHAHZAD AZEEM) (SINDHU SHARMA) Judge Judge SRINAGAR 13.08.2025 Ram Murti