Short answer. As a general rule, separate. Even when an indirect contempt charge arises out of or relates to a case already pending in court, the Rules of Court require it to be docketed, heard, and decided separately from that principal action, unless the court itself exercises its discretion to consolidate the two for a joint hearing and decision.
What the law says
Proceedings for indirect contempt may be initiated motu proprio by the court against which the contempt was committed by an order or any other formal charge requiring the respondent to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt.
Rule 71, Section 4 — How proceedings commenced. Read the full provision →
What the law says
If the contempt charges arose out of or are related to a principal action pending in the court, the petition for contempt shall allege that fact but said petition shall be docketed, heard and decided separately, unless the court in its discretion orders the consolidation of the contempt charge and the principal action for joint hearing and decision.
Rule 71, Section 4 — How proceedings commenced. Read the full provision →
How an indirect contempt charge gets started
Rule 71, Section 4 covers how proceedings for indirect contempt begin. The court itself can start the process motu proprio — on its own initiative — through an order or other formal charge directing the respondent to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt. In every other situation, the charge has to be commenced by a verified petition, supported by the relevant documents, and filed in compliance with the same requirements that apply to filing an initiatory civil pleading in that court.
Docketed, heard, and decided separately
The rule then answers the exact question you're asking. If the contempt charge arose out of, or is related to, a principal action already pending in the court, the petition for contempt must say so — but that connection does not fold the contempt charge into the main case. Instead, the rule requires that the contempt petition be docketed, heard and decided separately from the principal action. So even though the contempt grew out of your ongoing case, it is treated, procedurally, as its own matter.
The court's discretion to consolidate
There is one exception built into the same sentence: the court may, in its discretion, order the consolidation of the contempt charge and the principal action for a joint hearing and decision. This is not automatic, and it is not something a party can demand as a matter of right — it is left to the court to decide whether hearing both together makes sense given the facts and how the two proceedings are connected. Absent that order, the default rule of separate docketing, hearing, and decision applies.
What this means in practice
In practical terms, expect the contempt charge to generate its own case number, its own hearing schedule, and its own separate decision, distinct from whatever happens in your original case, unless the court specifically decides to combine them. This separation exists even though the petition is required to disclose that the contempt arose from the pending action, so the connection between the two cases is on record from the start — it just does not, by itself, merge them into one proceeding.