RK Manisana,J-This is an appeal under section 19 (1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short 'Act') from an order of the learned Single Judge made on 15.1.93 in Civil Original (Contempt) Petition No.91 of 1992. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in brief, are thus. The respondents made an application (Civil Original Contempt Petition No. 91 of 1992) for initiating contempt proceeding against the appellants alleging that the appel­lants had wilfully disobeyed the order made on 21.2.92 by a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Rule No. 608 of 1990, that is to say, the respondents moved the Court and drew its attention to the contempt alleged to have been committed by the appellants. Learned Single Judge has held that there was no wilful disobedience of the order of this Court and closed the case. However, the learned Single Judge directed the appellants to carry out the direction of the Court as is stated in the order. 3. Mr. T. Nandakumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal under section 19(1) of the Act on the ground that no punishment was imposed on the appellants by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. 4. Sub-section (1) of section 19 of the Act runs as follows : 'An appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt- (a) where the order or decision is that of a Single Judge, to a Bench of not less than two Judges of the Court. (b) where the order or decision is that of a Bench, to the Supreme Court." (emphasis added.) We are not concerned with the proviso to the sub-section. 5. The question which arises for consideration is whether an appeal shall lie under section 19(1) of the Act from any order or decision in a contempt proceeding other than order imposing punishment on the alleged contemner. 6. The Supreme Court has, in DN Taneja vs. Bhajan Lal, (1988) 3 SCC 26 , stated :- "The right of appeal will be available under sub-section (1) of section 19 only against any decision or order of a High Court passed in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. 6. The Supreme Court has, in DN Taneja vs. Bhajan Lal, (1988) 3 SCC 26 , stated :- "The right of appeal will be available under sub-section (1) of section 19 only against any decision or order of a High Court passed in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. In this connection, it is pertinent to refer to the provision of Article 215 of the Constitution which provides that every High Court shall be a Court of record and shall have all the powers of such a Court including the power to punish for contempt of itself. Article 215 confers on the High Court power to punish for contempt of itself. In other words, the High Court derives its jurisdiction to punish for contempt from Article 215 of the Constitution. As has been noticed earlier, an appeal will lie under section 19 (1) of the Act only when the High Court makes an order or decision in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent and, in our opinion rightly, that the High Court exercises its jurisdiction or power as conferred on it by Article 215 of the Constitution when it imposes a punishment for contempt, When the High Court does not impose any punishment on the alleged contemner, the High Court does not exercise its jurisdiction or power to punish for contempt. The jurisdiction of the High Court is to punish. When no punishment is imposed by the High Court, it is difficult to say that the High Court has exercised its jurisdiction or power as conferred on it by Article 215 of the Constitution." 7. The decision of the Supreme Court makes it clear that, if the Court does not punish the alleged contemner, no appeal shall lie under section 19(1) of the Act from any decision or order made in contempt proceeding. As already stated learned Single Judge did not punish the contemners. Therefore, no appeal shall lie from the impugned order. 8. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is not maintainable. The appeal is dismissed. No Costs.