Only an order convicting or imposing punishment is subject to challenge under section 19 of the contempt of court act

If the High Court for whatever reasons decides to issue or makes any direction relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties in a contempt proceeding, the agree person is not without remedy and can file an appeal against the said order if there was a provision for intra Court appeal or can appeal to the Supreme Court in other cases. 

An appeal under section 19 is maintainable only against an order or decision of the High Court passed in exercise of jurisdiction to punish for contempt that is an order imposing punishment for contempt  

Midnapore, People's cooperative Bank Limited v. Chunni Lal Nanda 2006 5 SCC 299

Ajay Kumar Bhalla versus Prakash Kumar Dixit civil appeal number 8129 of 2024 Decided by

DYC 

Even if written statement is not filed or not taken on record, but it will not preclude the defendant from participating in the proceedings

position is that even if the defendant opposite party failed to file a written statement and in that matter, even if for feature of the right to file written statement has occasion, it would not be entitled that party from participating in further proceedings without filing a written statement, and the said party would also be having the right to cross examine. 

Para 15. 2024 9  SCALE 1

Kaushik Narsing Bhai Patel versus SGR prime Corporation

Natural Justice does not necessarily mean oral hearing

Union Of India & Anr vs M/S. Jesus Sales Corporation on 26 March, 1996

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/961662/

According to us, the Appellate authority passed a reasonable order which should not have been held to be invalid by the High Court merely on the ' ground that before passing the said order the respondent was not given oral hearing, which amounted to violation of the principles of natural justice. 

Equivalent citations: 1996 AIR 1509, 1996 SCC (4) 69, AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 1509, 1996 (4) SCC 69, 1996 AIR SCW 1575, (1996) 3 JT 597 (SC), 1996 (3) JT 597, 1996 (2) UJ (SC) 409, (1996) 3 SCR 894 (SC), (1996) 55 ECC 51, (1996) 83 ELT 486, (1996) 64 ECR 169, (1996) 63 DLT 398

Plaint to be read as a whole

Proposition: 'Plaint to be read as a whole'

 

'PLAINT TO BE READ AS A WHOLE'
S.No	Case	Relevant Paragraph
1.	Corporation Of The City Of Bangalore vs M. Papaiah And Anr. on 1 August, 1989   1989 (3) SCC 612	3. ...... It is well established that for deciding the nature of a suit the entire plaint has to be read and not merely the relief portion, and the plaint in the present case does not leave any manner of doubt that the suit has been filed for establishing the title of the plaintiffs and on that basis getting an injunction against the appellant Corporation........
2.	ELDECO HOUSING AND INDUSTRIES LIMITED …    VERSUS   ASHOK VIDYARTHI AND OTHERS   2023 INSC 1043	23.12. In Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. v. Hede & Co. [Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. v. Hede & Co., (2007) 5 SCC 614] the Court further held that it is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage, and to read it in isolation. It is the substance, and not merely the form, which has to be looked into. The plaint has to be construed as it stands, without addition or subtraction of words. If the allegations in the plaint prima facie show a cause of action, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations are true in fact. D. Ramachandran v. R.V.Janakiraman, (1999) 3 SCC 267; See also Vijay Pratap Singh v. Dukh Haran Nath Singh, AIR 1962 SC 941].
'PLAINT TO BE REJECTED AS A WHOLE, NOT IN PARTS'
1.	KUM. GEETHA, D/O LATE KRISHNA & ORS. VERSUS NANJUNDASWAMY & ORS   CIVIL APPEAL No. 7413 of 2023 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 8147 of 2016)	7. In simple terms, the true test is first to read the plaint meaningfully and as a whole, taking it to be true. Upon such reading, if the plaint discloses a cause of action, then the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC must fail. To put it negatively, where it does not disclose a cause of action, the plaint shall be rejected
2.	Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali   (2020) 7 SCC 366	23.11. The test for exercising the power under Order 7 Rule 11 is that if the averments made in the plaint are taken in entirety, in conjunction with the documents relied upon, 5 would the same result in a decree being passed. This test was laid down in Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I [Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I, (2004) 9 SCC 512] which reads as : (SCC p. 562, para 139) "139. Whether a plaint discloses a cause of action or not is essentially a question of fact. But whether it does or does not must be found out from reading the plaint itself. For the said purpose, the averments made in the plaint in their entirety must be held to be correct. The test is as to whether if the averments made in the plaint are taken to be correct in their entirety, a decree would be passed."   23.12. In Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. v. Hede & Co. [Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. v. Hede & Co., (2007) 5 SCC 614] the Court further held that it is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage, and to read it in isolation. It is the substance, and not merely the form, which has to be looked into. The plaint has to be construed as it stands, without addition or subtraction of words. If the allegations in the plaint prima facie show a cause of action, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations are true in fact. D. Ramachandran v. R.V. Janakiraman [D. Ramachandran v. R.V. Janakiraman, (1999) 3 SCC 267; See also Vijay Pratap Singh v. Dukh Haran Nath Singh, AIR 1962 SC 941]
3.	Madhav Prasad Aggarwal v. Axis Bank Ltd   (2019) 7 SCC 158	10. We do not deem it necessary to elaborate on all other arguments as we are inclined to accept the objection of the appellant(s) that the relief of rejection of plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC cannot be pursued only in respect of one of the defendant(s). In other words, the plaint has to be rejected as a whole or not at all, in exercise of power under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC.