Connect with Contempt Appeal No. 7 of 2011 -- Hon. Anil Kumar Agarwal, J.:— Heard Sri A.S. Rai, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri V.C. Mishra, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri K.M. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 17.11.2011 passed by Hon. Single Judge of this court in Contempt Application (Civil) No. 4684 of 2011 whereby the appellant has been directed to appear before the court in person on 03.01.2012 for the purpose of framing of charge. The Stamp Reporter has reported that the present appeal is not maintainable in this Hon'ble Court. We have heard Sri A.S. Rai, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and Sri V.C. Mishra, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri K.M. Mishra on behalf of the respondents on the question of 'maintainability of the appeal' against the impugned order dated 17.11.2011 under section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the language of section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is very clear with regard to maintainability of appeal, as a right from any order or decision of High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. The impugned order comes in the category of the 'order' as mentioned in the section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is further contended that undoubtedly there is difference of opinion in the judgements delivered by the Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court laid down the law that against mere issuance of notice of the contempt petition or initiation/ dropping of proceedings for contempt, no appeal under section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act lies as reported in AIR 1978 SC 1014 , AIR 1982 SC 691 and 1996 All. The Hon'ble Apex Court laid down the law that against mere issuance of notice of the contempt petition or initiation/ dropping of proceedings for contempt, no appeal under section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act lies as reported in AIR 1978 SC 1014 , AIR 1982 SC 691 and 1996 All. Civil Journal 984, subsequently in a case as reported 1997 (9) JT 490 , the Apex Court pleased to lay down the law that "even if Statutory appeal or revision is barred under any provision of statute, even then the High Court has got ample power to entertain the appeal under the provision of Letters Patent Act (Relevant provision of which is reproduced in Chapter III Rule 5 of the Rules of the court)." The Apex Court has pleased to interpret the words "The appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt under section 19 of Contempt of Courts Act' and had held that in certain circumstances an appeal, even against the order of initiation of proceedings of contempt would be maintainable in reported 2000 (4) JT 629 . In an another decision reported in 2009 (1) ACJ 402 the Apex Court has pleased to follow the observation in a case reported in 2000(4) JT 619 (R.N. Dey and others Vs. Bhagyawati Pramanik and others). The Full Bench of this court has laid down the law as reported in 1981 UPRCC 256 that where two decisions of equal strength of benches with contrary decisions appear then the decision which is later in point of time is to be followed. The question involved in the present case is of high importance and contrary view have been taken by the Apex Court, therefore, this issue has been referred to the larger bench by the Division Bench of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 18852 of 2005 (Dharam Singh Vs. Guljari Lal and others) vide order dated 19.9.2005, by granting leave and staying the operation of the order passed by learned Single Judge by observing that in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Guljari Lal and others) vide order dated 19.9.2005, by granting leave and staying the operation of the order passed by learned Single Judge by observing that in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Mahboob S. Allibhoy and another 1996 (4) SCC 411 wherein two Judges Bench of the Apex Court has taken the view that no appeal shall lie under section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act against the interlocutory order passed by the High Court, stating that the words, "any order" must be read with expression 'decision' used in the sub section so as to exclude any interlocutory order of the High Court from the scope of the appeal. However in case of R.N. Dey and others Vs. Bhagyabati Pramanik and other (2000) 4 SSC 400 another two Judges bench of this court held that where after initiation of a proceeding for contempt, an order is passed without discharging the rule issued under the provisions of section 19, it would be an order or decision in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt and against such order an appeal shall be maintainable. In view of the above decision of the Apex Court the report made by Stamp Reporter may be over ruled and the appeal may be admitted. In reply of the above contention, the learned A.G.A. cited the case of Sadhana Upadhyay (Smt.) Advocate Vs. State of U.P. reported as (2008) 3 UPLBEC 2113 . It is a full Bench decision of this court. This issue has been decided by answering that any appeal does not lie under section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act against such order and in case of Midnapour Peoples' Cooperative Bank limited and others Vs. Chunni Lal Nanda and others reported in J.T. 2006 (11) SC 203 the scope of section 19 of the Act has been considered by holding that the cases dealt with the proper review to initiate the contempt proceedings or initiating the contempt proceedings or acquitting / exonerating the contemner or dropping the proceedings for contempt no appeal under section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act is maintainable, the only exception is where such direction or decision is incidental to or inextricably connected with the order punishing for contempt. In such circumstances, the appeal against the impugned order is not maintainable. In such circumstances, the appeal against the impugned order is not maintainable. Considering the facts, circumstances of the case and above mentioned cases cited by both the sides it appears that this issue has been referred by the two Judges Bench of the Supreme Court to the larger Bench in the case of Dharam Singh Vs. Guljari Lal and others and has stayed the operation of the order passed by learned Single Judge in above mentioned case, we are admitting this appeal and the leave is granted to the counsel for the appellant to correct the index as prayed. On behalf of the respondents Sri V.C. Mishra, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri K.M. Mishra are appearing, therefore, we fix this matter for final hearing on 13.02.2012 along with record of Contempt Application (Civil) No. 4684 of 2011. Till then the operation of the impugned order dated 17.11.2011 passed by Hon'ble Single Judge shall remain stayed. ____________