Judgment B.M. Lal J. 1. By this special appeal preferred under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of The Allahabad High Court Rules 1952 (for short the Rules) read with Section 19 of 'The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971' (for short the Act), impugned order dated 22-9-1992 passed by learned Single Judge is sought to be quashed. 2. The factual matrix of the case giving rise to instant special appeal are as under :- Dr. Smt Bharti Raj, respondent in the instant special appeal, brought an action before learned Single Judge of this Court for initiating proceedings for contempt of court against the 13 persons named in the contempt application including the appellants in present special appeal, alleging that they have wilfully avoided compliance of the orders passed by this Court. 3. Learned Single Judge while sitting in contempt matters, having found prima facie case made out, vide order dated 22-9-92 directed to issue notices against the respondents 1 to 10 and 11 and 13 and further directed them to appear before him in person. The above order is quoted below : "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. L.P. Naithani. Under the circumstances it appears just that the notices in this contempt petition against respondents no 1 to 10 and 11 and 13 be issued. They are directed to appear before me on 16th of October, 1992 in person. Office is directed to serve notices on them." 4. Accordingly notices were issued to following 12 persons including present appellants : 1. Prof. D.D. Khanna (Appellant No. 1). 2. Dr. (Smt.) Asha Seth (Appellant No. 2. 3. Sri Ashok Mohiley (Appellant No. 3). 4. Sri L.D. Bhatta. 5. Sri C.D. Pandey. 6. Sri P.B. Pathak. 7. Sri S.N. Ojha. 8. Sri Hira Singh. 9. Sri M.R. Pandey. 10. Dr. Sant Ram. 11. Sri H.S. Dubey. 12. Dr. B.M.L. Tiwari. Against the aforesaid order dated 22-9-92, above referred 3 appellants preferred against special appeal on which this court directed to list the appeal for hearing on 16th November 1992 and further directed that pending disposal of the appeal there will be stay of the impugned order so far as it directed the appellants to be personally present. 5. B.M.L. Tiwari. Against the aforesaid order dated 22-9-92, above referred 3 appellants preferred against special appeal on which this court directed to list the appeal for hearing on 16th November 1992 and further directed that pending disposal of the appeal there will be stay of the impugned order so far as it directed the appellants to be personally present. 5. The respondent in the instant appeal has put in appearance and has raised preliminary objection that the order dated 22-9-92 impugned in this appeal is not a 'judgment' within the meaning of Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules nor an 'order' within the meaning of Section 19 of the Act and as such is not appealable, therefore, preliminary objection be decided first before entering into the merits of the appeal. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents in the present special appeal, vehemently contended that the order impugned has not decided any issue or point, finally and no element of finality is attached to it in respect of any issue or point involved in the case, as such it is not an order or judgment within the meaning of Section 19 of the Act or Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules, consequently the appeal is not maintainable. By the impugned order just process has been issued and the contemners have been called upon to appear before the Court to show cause and nothing has been finally adjudicated upon by the impugned order. 7. Learned counsel further contended that the expression 'An appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision', used under Section 19(1) of the Act cannot be read in isolation rather it has to be read with other expressions following above expression, in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt'. Therefore, in the instant case impugned order requiring the parties to appear before it. Without deciding any of the contentions of the parties on merits, cannot be said to be an order passed in exercise of jurisdiction to punish the contemners, consequently instant special appeal is not maintainable against the order impugned. 8. Learned counsel placed reliance on catena of decisions of this Court and the apex Court in support of his contention which will be referred hereinafter at appropriate places. 8. Learned counsel placed reliance on catena of decisions of this Court and the apex Court in support of his contention which will be referred hereinafter at appropriate places. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the order impugned is 'an order within the meaning; of the provisions of Section 19(1) of the Act and Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules, as appeal lies as of right against any order or decision of High Court and the preliminary objection raised on behalf of respondents is liable to be rejected and the appeal deserves to be decided on merits. By calling upon the appellants to appear, learned Single Judge exercised its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties it appears better to have the provisions of Act and Rules, first. The relevant provisions of Section 19(1) of the Act read as under : "19. Appeals:- (1) An appeal shall lie as of 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 : Provided that where the order or decision is that of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner in any Union Territory, such appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court. Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules reads as under : "5. Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules reads as under : "5. Special appeal:- An appeal shall lie to the Court from a Judgment not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the Superintendence of the Court and not being an order, made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction or in the exercise of its power of superintendence or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction for in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment, order or award (a) of a tribunal Court or statutory arbitrator made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent list in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, or (b) of the Government or any Officer or authority, made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any such Act of one judge." 10. The above quoted provision of Rule 5 provides for a Special Appeal against the judgment of a Single Judge passed in exercise of original civil jurisdiction. Rule 5 is a reproduction of clause 10 of the Letters Patent and not a new provision. However, in the instant case the question involved is whether the order issuing notice and calling upon the opposite parties to appear before the Court to show cause is appealable under Section 19(1) of the Act read with Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules or not ? 11. This controversy has been decided by this Court and, the apex Court on so many occasions and the law on the point is very clear. 12. In Purshotam Dass Goel v. Honourable Mr. Justice B.S. Dhillon, (1978) 2 SCC 370 , their lordships of Apex Court held that the order or decision appealed against under Section 19 must be such that it decides some bone of contention raised before the High Court affecting the right of the party aggrieved. 12. In Purshotam Dass Goel v. Honourable Mr. Justice B.S. Dhillon, (1978) 2 SCC 370 , their lordships of Apex Court held that the order or decision appealed against under Section 19 must be such that it decides some bone of contention raised before the High Court affecting the right of the party aggrieved. Mere initiation of a proceeding for contempt by the issuance of the notice on the prima facie view that the case is a fit one for drawing up the proceeding, does not decide any question. In D.N. Taneja v. Bhajan Lal, (1988) 3 SCC 26 , Apex Court held that right of appeal is a creature of the statute and the question whether there is a right of appeal or not will have to be considered on an interpretation of the provision of the statute and not on the ground of propriety or any other consideration. 13. It further held that 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. 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, it does not exercise its jurisdiction or power to punish for contempt under Article 215. 14. In Somesh Sachdev v. Baldev Raj, 1989 ALJ 928, Division Bench of this Court ruled that the scheme of the Act will show that proceedings for contempt are initiated by Issuance of a notice under Section 17 and thereafter until the time that the court actually finds the contemner guilty of the alleged contempt, there may be many intervening orders but each of them would not be appealable, this could not have been the intention of the legislature. The expression 'An appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision' cannot read in isolation but must be: deemed to be circumscribed by the expression following it, i. e. the order passed in exercise of jurisdiction to punish the contemner. Therefore, unless the order is one which has been passed by the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, it cannot be said to be an appealable order. Therefore, unless the order is one which has been passed by the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, it cannot be said to be an appealable order. In Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D Kania, AIR 1981 SC 1786 , considering series of decisions of different High Courts and the apex court, in order to, determine whether an order is a judgment, ruled that whenever a trial Judge decides a controversy which affects valuable rights of one of the parties, it must be treated to be a judgment within the meaning of the Letters Patent. Further the interlocutory order, in order to be a judgment must contain the traits and trappings of finality either when the other decides the questions in controversy in an ancillary proceeding or in the suit itself or in a part of the proceedings. 15. Thus it is amply clear that when an order decides a controversy which affects right of cither party, it becomes appealable. 16. Apart from above, the word 'order' is not a term of art. It has no fixed legal meaning. In CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM Volume 67 at page 895, discussion regarding work 'order' finds place in the following terms: "The word 'order', as a noun and in its ordinary sense, is a well-understood term, containing no ambiguity, although it has been said that it has no fixed legal meaning. As a noun, the word 'order' is variously defined as meaning a command or direction authoritatively given, authoritative direction, mandate, command, whether oral or written, percept, injunction, rule or regulation, instruction, request. An 'order' is also defined as a writing requiring the one to whom it is addressed to deliver property of the parson making the order to someone therein described." Thus there may be so many type of orders but it is not possible to make an exhaustive list of the orders which are appealable and which are not. An appeal may lie against the order even though made at intermediate stage in the proceeding but the relevant test is whether such order decided any bone of contention finally. If the order decided any contention finally certainly it will be appealable. 17. In the instant case, by the order impugned, just notices have been issued and the opposite parties/appellants have been called upon to appear before learned Single Judge and show cause. If the order decided any contention finally certainly it will be appealable. 17. In the instant case, by the order impugned, just notices have been issued and the opposite parties/appellants have been called upon to appear before learned Single Judge and show cause. No finality has been attached to it. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, order impugned passed by learned Single Judge cannot be said to have been passed in the exercise of jurisdiction to punish for contempt and thus the same is not appealable. 18. However, under the facts and circumstances of present case, this Court is of the opinion that since contempt matter in question is of the year 1992, hence it would be in the fitness of things that the contempt petition itself be disposed of expeditiously and accordingly we hope that with a view to meet the ends of justice, contempt petition would be disposed of at an early date. In view of the premises aforesaid, present special appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. 19. Let the record of the case be sent to the learned Single Judge forthwith. Appeal dismissed.