Skip to content


Barada Kanta Mishra Vs. Orissa High Court - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectContempt of Court
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 72 of 1975
Judge
Reported inAIR1976SC1206; 1976CriLJ944; (1977)3SCC345
ActsContempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Sections 19
AppellantBarada Kanta Mishra
RespondentOrissa High Court
Excerpt:
- section 100: [dr. arijit pasayat & a.k. ganguly, jj] substantial question of law - suit filed by appellants for declaration of title and permanent injunction restraining respondents from interfering with their possession of suit plot of land - concurrent finding of trial court and first appellate court was that the plot was never allotted to appellants in partition and they were in possession thereof; on the contrary respondents were in possession - held, high court rightly dismissed second appeal taking view that findings impugned in second appeal involved pure questions of fact and appreciation of evidence and no substantial question of law was involved, hence no interference was called for under section 100. .....in the case, including the one of maintainability of the proceedings, would be heard together and; it rejected mr. b. mishra's prayer for hearing the case piecemeal, that is, first with regard to the question of maintainability. accordingly we dismiss the appeal. the stay in consequence, stands, vacated.
Judgment:
ORDER

R.S. Sarkaria, J.

1. Having heard the appellant in person and Mr. F.S. Nariman for the respondent, we are of opinion that this appeal is not maintainable. Only those orders or decisions in which some point is decided or finding is given in the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court to punish for contempt, are appealable under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The order in question is not such an order or decision. It is an interlocutory order pertaining purely to the procedure of the Court. All that the order in question says is that all the points arising in the case, including the one of maintainability of the proceedings, would be heard together and; it rejected Mr. B. Mishra's prayer for hearing the case piecemeal, that is, first with regard to the question of maintainability. Accordingly we dismiss the appeal. The stay in consequence, stands, vacated.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //