SANJAY KUMAR Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Sameer Sharma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent. Submissions :-

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection of maintainability of the present appeal on the ground that the order impugned is not an order, punishing the appellant for contempt, therefore, the appeal under Sec. 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is not maintainable in view of law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda (2006) 5 SCC 399 (Paragraph 11). He also relied upon the two Division Bench judgement of this Court in S.M.A. Abdi and another vs. Private Secretary Brotherhood and another, 2009 (4) UPLBEC 3106 and Tarun Kumar Agrawal vs. The Executive Engineer U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Meerut 2013 (101 ALR 46. He also supports the impugned order on merit.

(3.) Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appeal is maintainable and he relied upon a Division Bench judgement of this Court in Subhawati Devi vs. R.K. Singh and others (Special Appeal No. 553 of 2003 decided on 19/3/2004) and in view of law laid down in Modi Telefibres Ltd. and Ors. vs. Sujit Kumar Choudhary and Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 40 (Paragraph 4 and 5). He submits that the impugned order records of finding. He submits that once an order in compliance to the order of the writ court has been passed it was not open for the competent court to direct the appellant to revisit the order. Hence, on merit the impugned order deserves to be set aside.