JUDGMENT : 1. The Appellanthad moved a learned Single Judge of the Court for initiation of proceedings for contempt against the opposite parties. The learned Single Judge was not satisfied that any case for contempt was made out against that order this appeal has been filed. 2. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has contended that the appeal lies as a matter of right u/s 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act It is contended that the learned Single Judge has passed the order in question under appeal in exercise of the jurisdiction of the Court to punish for contempt. This question has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Barada Kanta Misra v. Mr. Justice Gati Krishna Misra AIR 1974 SO 2255 (para 7) Their Lordships have held that an appeal lies only when the Court initiates proceedings for contempt and it is only then that assumes jurisdiction to punish (or contempt. In a case where the Court declines to initiate action it does not exercise jurisdiction to punish for contempt. As such the appeal u/s 19(1) does not lie in a case where the application for initiation of proceedings for contempt has been rejected. The only remedy, in such a case is by way of petition under Article 136 of the Constitution to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has contended that the observations in Purshotam Dass Goel Vs. Hon'ble Mr. B.S. Dhillon and Others, (1978) 2 SCC 370 so to whittle down the decision in Barada Kanta Misra (supra) We find nothing in the observations in the 1978 decision which may detract from the authority of the 1974 decision. 3. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine as not maintainable.