- (1.) By order dated September 10, 1975 our learned brother P. K. Banerjee J. issued a Rule Nisi on the petitioners in this application to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt for having violated an order passed by the learned Judge on July 1, 1975 in Civil Revision Case No. 2277 of 1975. The present application has been filed by the alleged contemner-respondents purportedly under section 19 (2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 praying for a Rule on the opposite parties to show cause why, pending the hearing of the appeal, which has been filed by the said contemner-respondents against the order of P.K. Banerjee J. issuing the Rule Nisi, all further proceedings in the Contempt Rule should not be stayed.
(2.) According to Mr. Datta, appearing on behalf of the contemner-respondents, an order passed by the High Court issuing a Rule for contempt is appealable under section 19 (1) of the Contempt of Courts Act because an order of the High Court issuing a Rule Nisi and drawing up a proceeding for contempt is an order passed in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt.
(3.) We are unable to agree with the submission of Mr. Datta. By issuing the Rule Nisi the High Court merely called upon the contemner-respondents to appear before the Court and to show cause why they should not be punished for he alleged violation of the Court's order. By issuing the Rule the High Court merely decided to scrutinise the allegations made in the contempt application in order to determine whether or not there is any necessity to initiate contempt proceeding, or in other words, whether the High Court will exercise its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. Till the contemner-respondents appear before the Court in answer to the Rule Nisi and show cause and the High Court passes an order deciding to exercise its jurisdiction to punish for contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, no question of any appeal under section 19 (1) of the Contempt of Courts Act arises. As such the present application under section 19 (2) of the said Act is misconceived and is summarily dismissed.;