Allahabad High Court

Allahabad High Court: In an application filed under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) to seek a review of the judgment and order dated 07-08-2023 passed in by the High Court, wherein the Courtallowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for fresh consideration of the injunction application with certain direction, Kshitij Shailendra, J. while upholding the maintainability of the application, dismissed it on grounds of merits leaving all contentions on rival claims open to be argued by both the sides in first appeal.


In the initial judgment dated 07-08-2023, an appeal was allowed in which the matter was remanded to the Trial Court for a fresh consideration of the injunction application, along with specific directions provided by the court. Following this order of remand, the Trial Court proceeded to decide the injunction application afresh and issued an order dated 30-01-2024. Subsequently, the applicants filed the first appeal seeking review against the order of remand.

Analysis and Decision

The Court said that there weretwo main aspects concerning the present review application, first,the question of its maintainability or entertainability given the subsequent order by the trial court, and second, the merits of grounds upon which review has been sought.

The Court, regarding the first aspect, saidthat the substantive provision of review of any judgment or order is contained under Section 114 of the CPC and is governed by the procedure laid down under Order XLVII. It emphasized that there is no such provision in the Code, either explicitly or implicit, that would take away the right of a party aggrieved by an order of remand to raise a challenge to the same, either before a superior Court or before the same Court by means of a review application, merely because the remand order has been given effect in terms of a subsequent order. The only prohibition against consideration of an application at an advanced stage of proceedings can be found in a case where an ex-parte decree drawn by the Trial Court merges into a decree of the Appellate Court and, in that event, application for setting aside the ex-parte decree would not lie before the Trial Court.

The Court took note of Smt. Yasmeen Zia v. Smt. Haneefa Khursheed 2024 (2) ADJ 709 and Nagesh Datta Shetti v. The State of Karnataka, (2005) 10 SCC 383, wherein it was stated if there is a challenge to the remand order and the case concludes or a decree is issued in the meantime, the challenge to the remand order should still be valid. The Court emphasized that regardless of these judgments arising from challenges made before Appellate Courts through appeals or reviews, the right to challenge, whether by appeal, review, or otherwise, is equal. Therefore, the execution of the remand order in a subsequent decision does not render the challenge ineffective or legally unsustainable.

Thus, the Court held that an instant review application is maintainable.

The Court, addressing the second aspect, clarified that it isn’t dealing with an appeal against the 30-01-2024 order, as it’s already being contested in the first appeal. Therefore, arguments related to these documents are open for both sides in the appeal, while the review is limited to grounds specified in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code.

The Court stated that Section 114 of the CPC is the substantive provision for review, which empowers the Court to make orders on review applications at its discretion based on the facts and circumstances of each case.

The Court took note of Tungabhadra Industries v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1372, where it was stated that a review is not an appeal in disguise but is permitted only for correcting patent errors, and of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma 1979 (4) SCC 389, wherein the Court observed the power of review has definitive limits. It can only be exercised on specific grounds like new evidence or errors apparent on record but not to challenge a decision’s merits which falls under the Appellate Court’s purview. Review proceedings are strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and cannot be equated with appellate powers.

The Court referred to various judgments where the Court observed that mere disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be the ground for invoking review jurisdiction.

The Court found out that the reason for remanding the matter was the cryptic nature of the order dated 10-10-2022, by which, the injunction application had been allowed by the Trial Court without recording any finding on three basic ingredients necessary for grant or refusal of temporary injunction.

The Court reiterated that injunction application is decided based on stand taken in the affidavits as well as documents annexed thereto and focus is on prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss only. The consideration of an injunction application cannot be equated with holding of full-fledged trial of the suit itself where decision is made on the basis of primary and secondary evidence led by the parties during the course of trial.

The Court refrained from expressing final opinions., despite both parties presented strong document-based arguments during the appeal, defending their trade mark rights and product claims.

Further,the Court noted that both parties also submitted additional evidence after the remand order, and said that whether this evidence was properly considered by the trial court in its subsequent order is for the pending appeal to scrutinize, not for reviewing the remand order.

The Court heldthat there was no apparent error on the face of the record or any other grounds to review the remand order. Furthermore, the Court said that, since the appeal against the order dated 30-01-2024 is already pending, it is not deemed appropriate to exercise jurisdiction under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC to review the order of remand.

Thus, the Court held that the review application, although deemed maintainable, is dismissed on its merits, leaving all arguments on rival claims open to be presented by both sides in the first appeal.

[M.M.I. Tobacco Pvt. Ltd. v. Iftikhar Alam, 2024 SCC OnLine All 1266, Order dated 26-04-2024]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

Counsel for Applicant: Advocate Arvind Srivastava

Counsel for Opposite Party: Advocate Santosh Kumar Tripathi

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.