ORDER : A. Mateen, R.K. Rastogi, JJ. This appeal was initially filed u/s 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 by appellant Sharwan Kumar appearing in person being aggrieved by an order dated 28.4.2008, passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 181 (C) of 2008 by means of which the Hon'ble Contempt Judge had dropped the proceedings and the contempt petition was dismissed. Later on, appellant Sharwan Kumar had made a request that the contempt appeal be treated to be a special appeal preferred against the aforesaid judgment under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the High Court Rules. Permission was granted, and as such, this appeal is being treated as special appeal. 2. This Court had called upon the learned Chief Standing Counsel to assist the Court with respect to maintainability of the appeal u/s 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 or special appeal as provided under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the High Court Rules. 3. Learned Chief Standing Counsel cited before us the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Midnapore Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. and Others Vs. Chunilal Nanda and Others, (2006) 5 SCC 399, in which it has been held that an appeal u/s 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 shall lie against an order punishing for contempt and not against any other order. In the present case the order was passed dropping the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act. Such an order may be open to challenge under Article 136 of the Constitution before the Apex Court as laid down therein. 4. So far as special appeal against the above order Is concerned, learned Chief Standing Counsel has placed before the Court the provisions of filing special appeal as provided under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the High Court Rules and even within its parameter, this special appeal is not maintainable against an order of learned single Judge passed under the contempt jurisdiction by means of which the contempt petition was dismissed and notices were discharged. Learned Chief Standing Counsel has further proceeded to argue that had it been the case that the Hon'ble Contempt Judge while issuing certain directions had travelled beyond the scope of contempt jurisdiction, the special appeal under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the High Court Rules would lie, but there is no such case, and in the present situation and scenario neither contempt appeal nor special appeal is maintainable. 5. It is also noteworthy to mention that Writ Petition No. 6877 (S/S) of 2007 filed by Sri Sharwan Kumar from which the entire proceedings erupted is still pending and it would be feasible and just for appellant Sharwan Kumar to seek his remedy by moving an application in the same petition. 6. In view of the above, this special appeal is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed.