words per minute
21
pankajsrivastava
00:00
Speed
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Court No. - 29
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 262 of 2020
Appellant :- Roop Singh
Respondent :- Shri Vinay Kumar Jauhari And 5 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Ashok Kumar Lal,Ravindra Narayan Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Uday Pratap Singh,Kshitij Shailendra
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
(Per : Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.)
1. Heard Sri Ravindra Narayan Singh alongwith Sri Ashok Kumar Lal, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and Sri Uday Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.2 to 5.
2. The present special appeal has been filed seeking to challenge an order dated 04.03.2020 passed in Contempt Application (Civil) No.6748 of 2018.
3. The respondent no.2 in the contempt application is the appellant before us.
4. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-applicant with regard to the maintainability of the special appeal. It has been contended that the order under appeal does not decide the rights of the parties and as such the same cannot be held to be a judgment for the purposes of filing of an intra-court appeal.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has supported the maintainability of the appeal by referring to the merits of the case and trying to contend that the order under appeal was legally unjustifiable. In support of his contention learned counsel for the appellant has sought to place reliance upon the judgments in the case of Anil Kumar Gupta and another Vs. Pawan Kumar Singh and others1, Subhash Chandra Tiwari and 2 others Vs. Kishore and 4 others2 and Vinod Kumar Sharma, District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh and another Vs. Shiv Mohan Dwivedi, Assistant Teacher, Inter College, Sarai Brindabad, District Azamgarh3.
6. In order to appreciate the rival contentions we deem it necessary to set out the order dated 04.03.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge, against which the present appeal has been preferred. The order reads as under:-
"On 10.12.2019, charges were required to be framed. However, when on 10.12.2019 certain submissions were made by the opposite parties explaining their conduct charges were not framed on that date. On 9.1.2020, the respondents were required to take further instructions.
No further instructions have been brought on record.
List this case peremptorily on 1.4.2020. On that date, the respondent no. 2 shall be personally present for the framing of charges."
7. The ambit and scope of maintainability of an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 19714 and also an intra-court appeal under the relevant rules of the High Court, in case of an order passed in contempt proceedings was considered in the case of Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. and others Vs. Chunilal Nanda and others5 and it was held that any