# Prem Kumar Singh v. Pawan Kumar Gangwar & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1257
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-28
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 367 of 2026
- **Bench:** Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Kunal Ravi Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/prem-kumar-singh-v-pawan-kumar-gangwar-ors-54738
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

4 All. Prem Kumar Singh Vs. Pawan Kumar Gangwar & Ors.
1257
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1257
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
THE HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.

Special Appeal No. 367 of 2026

Prem Kumar Singh ...Appellant
Versus
Pawan Kumar Gangwar & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1) Maintainability of Special Appeal against an order, whereby the contempt application was dismissed
holding that no case for contempt is made out.
(2) Applicability of judgment passed in Tanseem Fatima's case, which was already declared as per incuriam.

Headnotes
(A) Practice and procedure - Special Appeal - Maintainability - Contempt application was
dismissed holding that no case for contempt is made out - Validity challenged - Applicability of
Tasneem Fatima's case, Subhash Chandra's case and Alok Kumar Yadav's case felt into
consideration: (E-1)
Held: Intra court special appeals in contempt cases are maintainable only when the contempt court oversteps
its jurisdiction by addressing the merits of the original dispute. In the instant matter the contempt court vide
order impugned has neither touched the merit nor has decided any issue and it has not made any direction
relating to the merits of the disputes between the parties. Hence, we find that the contempt court has not
overstepped its jurisdiction - No interference is required in the instant intra court appeal - The judgment in
Tasneem Fatima's case being per incuriam is not applicable in the instant matter and the judgments in
Subhash Chandra's case and Alok Kumar Yadav's case are holding the field. [Para 8]

Case Law Cited
Special Appeal no. 83 of 2025, Tasneem Fatima vs. Sri Amit Mohan Mishra decided on 20.02.2025, 2025:
AHC-LKO:11415-DB; Subhash Chandra vs. Srikant Goswami and others, 2024 SCC OnLine All 5435; Alok
Kumar Yadav vs. Sri Ashish Kumar Pandey, 2025 (172) ALR 489; Midnapore Peoples' Cooperative Bank Ltd. &
Ors. vs. Chunilal Nanda & Ors., (2006) 5 SCC 399 - referred to.

List of Acts
Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 - Chapter VIII Rule 5.

List of Keywords
Public Interest Litigation, Maintainability of intra court appeal, Contempt Application, Contempt proceeding,
Per incuriam, Oversteps its jurisdiction, Merits of the dispute, Direction.

Case Arising From
Judgment and order dated 12.3.2026 passed in Contempt Application (Civil) No. 1591 of 2026; Prem Kumar
Singh v. Pawan Kumar Gangwar & Ors.
1258 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant: Ramesh Kumar Tiwari, Sanjay Pandey
Advs. for the Respondents: Manish Goyal (Sr. Adv. and AAG), Devesh Vikram (ACSC), Ms. Akanksha
Sharma (SC), Fuzail Ahmad Ansari(SC).

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.
&
Hon'ble Kunal Ravi Singh, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Manish Goyal, learned Addl. Advocate
General assisted by Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel; Ms. Akanksha
Sharma, learned Standing Counsel and Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for
State respondents.

2. The instant intra court special appeal has been preferred assailing the validity of the
order dated 12.3.2026 passed in Contempt Application (Civil) No.1591 of 2026 (Prem Kumar
Singh v. Pawan Kumar Gangwar & Ors.) and for a direction to respondents to make compliance of
the writ Court order dated 6.10.2025 passed in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.2933 of 2025
(Munni Lal @ Hari Sharan v. State of U.P. & Ors.). For ready reference, the order dated 12.3.2026
passed by the Contempt Court is reproduced as under:-

 "1. Perused the material on record.

 2. No case for contempt is made out.

 3. Contempt application is misconceived and the same stands dismissed.""

3. At the time of admission, on 24.04.2026, while arguing on the maintainability of the
instant intra court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 19521,
learned counsel for the appellant had relied upon a judgment passed by Division Bench dated
20.02.2025 in Special Appeal no.83 of 2025 (Tasneem Fatima v. Sri Amit Mohan Mishra)2. The
said intra court special appeal was filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules, 1952 against the
order dated 22.01.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Contempt Application (Civil) No.2046 of
2023. The said special appeal was allowed on 20.02.2025 and the order impugned passed by
learned Single Judge in Contempt Application was set aside. The contempt application was
restored to its original number and listed before the appropriate Court for further proceeding.
Learned counsel for the appellant, in this background had submitted on the previous date, that
being on similar footing the instant intra court special appeal is also maintainable and liable to be
allowed.

4. In this backdrop, we have proceeded to pass the following order on 24.04.2026:-

 "1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant intra court appeal under
Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules, 1952 is maintainable against the order passed by
learned Single Judge dated 12.03.2026 in Contempt Application (Civil) No.1591 of 2026.
4 All. Prem Kumar Singh Vs. Pawan Kumar Gangwar & Ors.
1259
 2. Before proceeding further on merits of the case, we request Shri Manish Goyal,
learned Addl. Advocate General assisted by Shri J.N. Maurya, learned Chief Standing Counsel to
assist the Court as to whether the instant intra court appeal is maintainable or not.

 3. Put up this matter again on 28.04.2026 at 12.30 p.m. for further orders.""

5. In response to the aforesaid order, Shri Manish Goyal, learned Addl. Advocate General
has appeared before the Court and, at the outset, placed reliance on the judgment passed by a
Division Bench of this Court in Subhash Chandra v. Srikant Goswami Posted Managing Director,
Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. Lucknow & Ors.3 He submits that in the said proceeding similar
question, qua the maintainability of an intra court appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the
Rules, 1952 from orders emanating from contempt proceeding, was raised. While considering the
entire spectrum of the dispute in question as well as considering the judicial pronouncements in this
regard, the Division Bench had proceeded to dismiss the said appeal. Learned Addl. Advocate
General, in this backdrop, submits that in the light of the judgment in Subhash Chandra (Supra), the
instant intra court appeal is not maintainable. For ready reference, paragraphs 19, 20, 69, 70 and 71
of the said judgment are reproduced as under:-

 "......19. Before proceeding further, it will be relevant to notice an order in the instant
case passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 22.04.2024 and the relevant portion of the
said order reads as under:-

 "Now, the order impugned herein has been passed by the High Court in exercise of its
contempt jurisdiction under Section 12of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which is a central
enactment. It is referable to entry 14 of the concurrent list, therefore, to this extent there is no
difficulty i.e. if it is found that this is an order passed in exercise of criminal jurisdiction by the
High Court, then, this appeal would fall within the exception made in Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the
Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, however, if it is found that contempt jurisdiction exercised by
the learned Judge of the High Court while passing the impugned order, does not fall within the
meaning of the words "in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction" used in Chapter VIII Rule 5, then,
the position would be different subject of course to there being other issues involved and
authorities thereon as also the submissions to be made by the learned counsel for the parties.

 The question is whether the aforesaid words- "in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction"
refer to the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court on the criminal side under the Code of
Criminal Procedureor any other law falling in the criminal field or would it include the exercise
of contempt jurisdiction which is termed as quasi criminal proceeding/jurisdiction. Whether these
words will include the quasi criminal jurisdiction of a contempt Court of the High Court."

 20. In light of the tentative observations noted above, this Court will consider the nature
of the proceedings exercised by the High Court in its contempt jurisdiction inter alia to adjudge the
issue of maintainability of the instant appeal in light of the rival submissions.

 ........
1260 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 69. The pith and substance of the aforesaid discussion, the legal principles involved and
circumstances when an appeal may lie underSection 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and
when a Special Appeal may lie from an order passed in contempt jurisdiction can be summarized
as under:-

 (A)Section 19 (1) of the Contempt of Courts Act can be invoked only when the
Contempt Court has exercised its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. The essence of this provision
is to provide a remedy against decision where the court has taken a definitive action to penalize a
contemnor. This includes orders that impose fines, imprisonment, or other punitive measures
directly related to the contemptuous behavior. Interlocutory orders, which do not entail punishment
for contempt, do not fall within the ambit ofSection 19. Such orders may include directions to
produce documents, file affidavits, or procedural directives necessary for the continuation of the
contempt proceedings. These are routine judicial actions that facilitate the progress of the case but
do not constitute a final determination on the issue of contempt. Routine orders passed during the
pendency of contempt proceedings are also excluded from the scope ofSection 19. These orders
are typically procedural and administrative in nature, ensuring that the proceedings move forward
without addressing the substantive issues of the original case or the merits of the contempt.

 (B) The crux of the matter lies in the nuanced interpretation of what constitutes "merit"
within the context of contempt proceedings, as referenced by the Supreme Court in the Midnapore
Peoples Cooperative Bank Limited case. The term "merit" has not been defined in a straight jacket
formula, leading to varying interpretations. However, a cumulative reading of the judgments
provide clarity on several key aspects. In the Midnapore case, the Supreme Court held that in
contempt proceedings, it is inappropriate to adjudicate or decide any issue related to the merits of
the dispute between the parties. This principle aims to ensure that contempt proceedings do not
encroach upon the substantive rights of the parties involved in the original dispute. The focus of
contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the dignity and authority of the court, not to resolve the
underlying dispute. The term "merit" in this context refers to the substantive issues of the original
case that led to the contempt proceedings. It encompasses the core legal and factual questions that
were or are being contested in the original litigation.

 (C) Special appeals from the order or judgment of a single judge bench in contempt
cases hinge on the distinction between addressing the merits of the original dispute and the
conduct constituting contempt. The primary responsibility of the Contempt Court is to determine
whether contempt has occurred and to impose appropriate sanctions if it has. The merits of the
original controversy are outside the domain of the contempt court. However, when the Contempt
Court issues directions or discusses the merits of the original controversy, it oversteps its
jurisdiction. In such cases, a special appeal would lie to the High Court. This ensures that the
original substantive issues are not inadvertently decided within the limited scope of contempt
proceedings, preserving the parties' rights to a fair adjudication of their dispute.

 (D) The interpretation of each case depends on its specific facts and circumstances.
Courts must carefully distinguish between orders that address the procedural aspects of contempt
proceedings and those that encroach upon the substantive issues of the original case. This
distinction is crucial to maintaining the integrity of contempt jurisdiction and ensuring that appeals
4 All. Prem Kumar Singh Vs. Pawan Kumar Gangwar & Ors.
1261
underSection 19 of the Act of 1971 are appropriately limited to cases where punitive action for
contempt has been taken.

 Thus, Special appeals in contempt cases are warranted only when the Contempt Court
oversteps its jurisdiction by addressing the merits of the original dispute, ensuring that the
substantive rights of the parties are protected. The interpretation of each case must consider the
specific facts and circumstances to uphold the integrity of contempt jurisdiction and provide
appropriate remedies for aggrieved parties.

 70. If the impugned order is now tested on the anvil of the principles summarized above
then it would reveal that the Contempt Court vide order impugned has neither touched the merit
nor has decided any issue and it has not made any direction relating to the merits of the disputes
between the parties. Hence, it cannot be canvassed that the Contempt Court overstepped its
jurisdiction.

 71. Thus, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the firm view that the
intra-court appeal is not maintainable. Accordingly, it is dismissed. There shall be no order as to
costs."

 (Emphasis supplied)

6. Learned Addl. Advocate General submits that while passing the judgment in Tasneem
Fatima (Supra), the Division Bench has not considered the judgment in Subhash Chandra (Supra).
He has also placed reliance on the judgment dated 28.08.2025 in Special Appeal No.788 of 2025
(Alok Kumar Yadav v. Sri Ashish Kumar Pandey)4, wherein the Division Bench has again denied
to interfere in the special appeal questioning the validity of the order passed by contempt court. In
the said judgment, the Division Bench while considering the other judgments has also considered
the judgments in Tasneem Fatima (Supra); Midnapore Peoples' Cooperative Bank Ltd. & Ors. v.
Chunilal Nanda & Ors.5 and Subhash Chandra (Supra). In the said judgment, the Division Bench
has held the judgment in Tanseem Fatima as per incuriam. For ready reference, the relevant para 16
of the judgment in Alok Kumar Yadav (Supra) is reproduced as under:-

 "16. So far as the judgement in the case of Tanseem Fatima (supra) is concerned, the
Division Bench without referring to any of the binding precedents came to the conclusion that
the judgement in the case of Midnapore (supra) on the question of maintainability of Special
Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of 1952, has no application and provisions of
Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of 1952 do not bar appeal against order dismissing the
contempt petition, which judgement apparently on account of ignoring binding precedents is per
incuriam and cannot be pressed into service as a precedent."

 (Emphasis supplied)

7. Learned Addl. Advocate General, in this backdrop, submits that once the judgment in
Tanseem Fatima (Supra) has already been declared as per incuriam, the reliance on the same by
1262 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
learned counsel for the appellant is not justified and the instant intra court appeal being not
maintainable is liable to be dismissed.

8. Having heard rival submissions, perusing the record and respectfully considering the
judgments cited at Bar, we find that intra court special appeals in contempt cases are maintainable
only when the contempt court oversteps its jurisdiction by addressing the merits of the original
dispute. In the instant matter the contempt court vide order impugned has neither touched the merit
nor has decided any issue and it has not made any direction relating to the merits of the disputes
between the parties. Hence, we find that the contempt court has not overstepped its jurisdiction. We
find that the judgment in Tasneem Fatima (Supra) being per incuriam is not applicable in the
instant matter and the judgments in Subhash Chandra (Supra) and Alok Kumar Yadav (Supra) are
holding the field. As such, no interference is required in the instant intra court appeal.

9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
instant intra court appeal against the order impugned is not maintainable and is accordingly
dismissed.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1262
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No 4960 of 2026

Smt. Asha Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1) Entitlement of first wedded wife to get family pension, particularly when nomination by husband in favour
of second wife is there.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Family pension - Entitlement of first wife - Petitioner's husband was died in
harness - First wife claimed family pension - Daughter of second wedded wife also claimed
compassionate appointment - Effect - B.S.A. required first wife to produce the succession
certificate for payment of family pension - Validity challenged: (E-1)
Held: The second marriage, after the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, came into force, is void. The second wife
does not fall within the definition of 'family,' and any nomination in her favour cannot override the legally
wedded wife's right to family pension, as she qualifies as a family member - As the second marriage is void
under the Hindu Marriage Act, the petitioner, as the legally wedded wife, is entitled to the family pension.
[Para 16]

Case Law Cited