JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J. Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J. 1. This intra court appeal filed under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 5.12.2016 whereby the contempt application has been dismissed as not maintainable following the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Kanwar Singh Saini vs. High Court of Delhi, (2012) 4 SCC 307 . 2. The learned Single Judge has held that the applicant has the remedy under the provisions of Order 39, Rule 2A of the C.P.C. then the question of filing a contempt application under the Contempt of Courts Act would be misconceived. It is this law which the learned Single Judge has followed. 3. An appeal against the order of contempt court is provided under Section 19 of Contempt of Courts Act and such appeal is maintainable only when the contempt court decides to punish the contemnor in exercise of powers under the contempt jurisdiction. 4. The legal position in that regard is well settled. The reference may be had to the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Baradakanta Mishra vs. Justice Gatikrushna Misra, (1975) 3 SCC 535 , Purshotam Dass Goel vs. Justice B.S. Dhillon, (1978) 2 SCC 370 , Union of India vs. Mario Cabral e Sa, (1982) 3 SCC 262 , D.N. Taneja vs. Bhajan Lal, (1988) 3 SCC 26 , State of Maharashtra vs. Mahboob S. Allibhoy, (1996) 4 SCC 411 and J.S. Parihar vs. Ganpat Duggar, (1996) 6 SCC 291 . In all the aforesaid cases, it has been held that if the contempt Court refuses to initiate contempt proceedings an appeal would not be maintainable under Section 19 of Contempt of Courts Act. 5. To similar effect conclusion has been drawn in paragraph 11 in the case of Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. and Others vs. Chunilal Nanda and Others, (2006) 5 SCC 399 and it has been explained that if such an order is passed, they may be open to challenge under Article 136 of the Constitution. For ready reference Paragraphs 11 (I), (II), (III), (IV) and (V) are quoted below:- "11. Bank Ltd. and Others vs. Chunilal Nanda and Others, (2006) 5 SCC 399 and it has been explained that if such an order is passed, they may be open to challenge under Article 136 of the Constitution. For ready reference Paragraphs 11 (I), (II), (III), (IV) and (V) are quoted below:- "11. The position emerging from these decisions, in regard to appeals against orders in contempt proceedings may be summarized thus: I. An appeal under section 19 is maintainable only against an order or decision of the High Court passed in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, that is, an order imposing punishment for contempt. II. Neither an order declining to initiate proceedings for contempt, nor an order initiating proceedings for contempt nor an order dropping the proceedings for contempt nor an order acquitting or exonerating the contemnor, is appealable under Section 19 of the CC Act. In special circumstances, they may be open to challenge under Article 136 of the Constitution. III. In a proceeding for contempt, the High Court can decide whether any contempt of court has been committed, and if so, what should be the punishment and matters incidental thereto. In such a proceeding, it is not appropriate to adjudicate or decide any issue relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties. IV. Any direction issued or decision made by the High Court on the merits of a dispute between the parties, will not be in the exercise of 'jurisdiction to punish for contempt' and therefore, not appealable under section 19 of CC Act. The only exception is where such direction or decision is incidental to or inextricably connected with the order punishing for contempt, in which event the appeal under section 19 of the Act, can also encompass the incidental or inextricably connected directions. V. If the High Court, for whatsoever reason, decides an issue or makes any direction, relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties, in a contempt proceedings, the aggrieved person is not without remedy. Such an order is open to challenge in an intra-court appeal (if the order was of a learned Single Judge and there is a provision for an intra-court appeal), or by seeking special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India (in other cases). The first point is answered accordingly." 6. Such an order is open to challenge in an intra-court appeal (if the order was of a learned Single Judge and there is a provision for an intra-court appeal), or by seeking special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India (in other cases). The first point is answered accordingly." 6. It would, thus, be seen that the Supreme Court has itself explained that if any issue is decided by the contempt Court or it makes direction relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties in a contempt proceedings such an order is open to challenge in an intra court appeal if the order was of a learned Single Judge and if there is provision for intra court appeal. From the concurrent reading of the clauses I to (V) quoted above, it shall be seen that no intra court appeal would be maintainable against an order refusing to initiate contempt proceedings. In such a case the order can only be challenged under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 7. So far as the judgment relied by learned counsel for the appellant in the case of Arun Kumar Tiwari and Another vs. Rajesh Pandey and Others, 2015 (5) ADJ 494 , is concerned, in the said case the learned Single Judge had overruled the objection of the appellants qua the maintainability of the contempt petition and it is in that circumstance the Division Bench held that an intra court appeal would be maintainable. 8. In the facts of the case there has been no determination of any of the issue, on the contrary the contempt application has been dismissed as not maintainable and therefore the Court has refused to initiate contempt proceedings. 9. Mr. Shashi Kant Verma, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant, however, submits that in view of the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. and Others vs. Chunilal Nanda and Others (Supra) and Vinita M. Khanolkar vs. Pragna M. Pai and Others, (1998) 1 SCC 500 , this appeal under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, would be maintainable. 10. In our opinion the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant is based on misreasoning of the judgment in the case of Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. and Others (Supra). 10. In our opinion the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant is based on misreasoning of the judgment in the case of Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. and Others (Supra). The Supreme Court has specifically noted that if any issue is decided on merits then such directions of the contempt court can always be examined in a proceedings under the Letter Patent Appeal. We are of the considered opinion that in the facts of the case there has been no direction or decision on the merits of issues raised in the contempt application. 11. Similarly in the case of Vinita M. Khanolkar (Supra), the Apex Court has held that an appeal would be maintainable unless it is excluded by the statute. In our opinion, the said judgment also does not assist the appellant in any manner. 12. We may also record that contempt proceedings are quasi criminal in nature and, therefore, the provisions of Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules to the proceedings an order dismissing an application for contempt would not be attracted except when the contempt court decides to pass orders issuing directions in exercise of powers under the contempt of courts Act which order would be referable to the powers vested in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India rather than the contempt of courts Act. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no good ground to entertain this intra court appeal. 14. It is accordingly dismissed being not maintainable.