- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Shanker Motiram Nale v. Shiolalsing Gannusing Rajput .
Factual and Procedural Background
The appeal was filed against an order of a Division Bench of the High Court that had rejected an application seeking review of a prior judgment and decree passed by a learned Single Judge (who had retired by the time of this order). The appeal was not directed against the underlying judgment itself, but only against the order refusing review. An interlocutory application, I.A. No. 1/93 (Application for substitution), was also on record.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether an appeal lies against an order of a court rejecting a review application in light of Order 47 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
- Consequent procedural effect on the pending interlocutory application (I.A. No. 1/93) if the appeal is not maintainable.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court held that the appeal was “obviously incompetent” because it targeted an order rejecting a review application rather than the basic judgment and decree. The court expressly relied on Order 47 Rule 7 of the CPC, which bars an appeal against an order rejecting review. Applying this procedural bar, the court concluded that the appeal could not be entertained and must be rejected. In view of the rejection of the appeal, the court found it unnecessary to pass any orders on I.A. No. 1/93 (Application for substitution). The court also made no order as to costs.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL REJECTED. The court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable under Order 47 Rule 7 CPC because it challenged an order refusing review rather than the underlying judgment and decree. I.A. No. 1/93: No orders were necessary in light of the appeal’s rejection. No costs were awarded.
Implications: The immediate effect is that the appellant cannot pursue an appeal against the High Court’s order rejecting review; the underlying judgment and decree remain undisturbed. The order applies the statutory bar under Order 47 Rule 7 CPC and does not set out broader legal principles beyond affirming that bar.
Order
1. This appeal is obviously incompetent. It is against an order of a Division Bench of the High Court rejecting the application for review of a judgment and decree passed by a learned Single Judge, who seems to have retired in the meantime. It is not against the basic judgment. Order 47 Rule 7 of CPC bars an appeal against the order of the court rejecting the review. On this basis, we reject the appeal. No costs.
I.A No. 1/93 (Application for substitution)
2. No orders are necessary in view of the rejection of the appeal.
Alert