Delhi High Court: In an intra-court appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r), Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) read with Section 10, Delhi High Court Act, 1966, assailing an order of the Single Judge directing issuance of notice in contempt proceedings and deferring consideration of an application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC, a Division Bench of Vivek Chaudhary and Renu Bhatnagar, JJ., dismissed the appeal as well as the application seeking condonation of 105 days’ delay.
The Court held that the appellant had failed to disclose sufficient cause covering the entire period of delay and further ruled that an order merely issuing notice in contempt proceedings and deferring adjudication of an interim application is purely procedural and interlocutory in nature, and therefore not appealable under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC read with Section 10, Delhi High Court Act, 1966.
Background
In an appeal preferred under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC read with Section 10, Delhi High Court Act, 1966, the appellant assailed the order dated 9 December 2025 passed by the Single Judge in CS (OS) No. 442/2025, whereby notice in contempt proceedings was directed to be issued for alleged non-compliance of an earlier order dated 11 July 2025 and consideration of the application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC was deferred till compliance. The appeal was accompanied by an application under Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 105 days on the ground that the appellant had been pursuing review proceedings and proceedings before the Supreme Court.
Analysis
The Division Bench observed that though courts ordinarily adopt a liberal approach while considering applications under Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963, the applicant must disclose a bona fide and satisfactory explanation covering the entire period of delay. Merely referring to pendency of review proceedings and proceedings before the Supreme Court did not constitute sufficient cause explaining why the appeal could not be instituted within limitation. The Court was therefore not persuaded to condone the delay of 105 days.
On maintainability, the Court held that not every interlocutory or procedural order qualifies as a “judgment” amenable to appellate scrutiny under Section 10, Delhi High Court Act, 1966. Relying on Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania, (1981) 4 SCC 8, it reiterated that only such orders which decide matters of moment or affect vital and valuable rights of the parties would constitute appealable judgments. The impugned order neither adjudicated the application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC on merits nor granted, refused, varied or vacated any interim injunction. It merely deferred consideration thereof and directed issuance of notice in contempt proceedings.
Placing reliance on Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda, (2006) 5 SCC 399, the Court further held that an order merely initiating contempt proceedings or issuing notice therein is not appealable. Since the impugned order was essentially procedural and interlocutory in character, and did not determine any substantive rights, it was not appealable under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC read with Section 10, Delhi High Court Act, 1966.
Decision
Accordingly, the application seeking condonation of delay as well as the appeal were dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stood disposed of.
Also Read: Contempt of Court | SCC Times
[Sanjay Piplani v. Engineers India Ltd., FAO(OS) 61 of 2026, decided on 14-5-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Respondent: Gauhar Mirza, Kaveesh Nair, Arnav Chopra, Advocates
