Citation : 2001 Local Law (CG) 65
The Chhattisgarh High Court, in an order authored by Justice R.S. Garg, has dismissed an appeal filed by plaintiffs who challenged an appellate court’s grant of an injunction in favour of a defendant. The dispute reached the High Court after the trial court refused the defendant’s original injunction application; the defendant then succeeded on appeal. The plaintiffs sought to upset that appellate order in the High Court under Order 43 Rule 1(r) read with Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). Justice Garg found the appeal to be legally untenable and dismissed it.
At the heart of the decision is a straightforward point of procedure and statutory construction. Order 43 Rule 1(r) allows a party to appeal certain interlocutory orders to the court to which an appeal ordinarily lies. Section 104 of the CPC, however, sets out the limited catalogue of interlocutory orders from which an appeal lies and contains an important restriction in subsection (2): no appeal is maintainable from an order passed in appeal under that Section. In this case, the appellate court’s injunction was an order made in appeal. The High Court held that the Code does not permit a second, collateral appeal in the High Court simply because an injunction was granted for the first time at the appellate stage. In short, once an appellate court decides the injunction application, Section 104(2) bars another appeal against that appellate order.
Justice Garg’s ruling makes two practical points clear. First, an order granting or refusing an injunction in appeal is not open to a further miscellaneous appeal to the High Court where the statute expressly limits appeals from orders made in appeal. Second, plaintiffs who feel aggrieved by such an appellate decision must pursue remedies that the law specifically allows rather than seeking a fresh appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r). The judgment leaves the plaintiffs free to challenge the appellate order by any lawful route that remains open to them, but it closes off the path they chose.
For practitioners the ruling is a useful reminder: procedural limits in the CPC are not formalities. Section 104(2) operates as a clear gatekeeper against repeated appeals from orders that are already the product of an appellate decision. Parties and counsel should plan litigation strategy with these limits in mind, and where an appellate court grants or refuses interim relief, consider what specific statutory or procedural mechanisms (such as revision petitions, review, or execution-related remedies, where available and appropriate) remain for challenging that decision.
Case Details : Misc. Appeal No. 136 of 2001, Motilal and Ors. vs. Bhandari (03.05.2001)
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: H.B. Agrawal, Adv.
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order XLIII Rule 1; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order XLIII Rule 1(r); Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order XXXIV Rule 1; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order XXXIX Rule 1; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order XXXIX Rule 10; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order XXXIX Rule 2; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order XXXIX Rule 2-A, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order XXXIX Rule 4; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Section 104
======
विषय: सिविल – स्थायी निषेधाज्ञा (Injunction)
वादी द्वारा निषेधाज्ञा प्रदान करने हेतु आवेदन प्रस्तुत किया गया था, जिसे निचली अदालत ने अस्वीकार कर दिया। इस आदेश के विरुद्ध वादियों ने संहिता की आदेश 43 नियम 1 (r) सहपठित धारा 104, सिविल प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1908 (CPC) के अंतर्गत अपील दायर की।
निर्णय: माननीय न्यायालय ने कहा कि धारा 104(1) की उपधारा (1) के खंड (i) में यह स्पष्ट है कि केवल उन्हीं आदेशों के विरुद्ध अपील दायर की जा सकती है, जिनके विरुद्ध अपील की अनुमति नियमों में स्पष्ट रूप से दी गई हो। आदेश 43 नियम 1 के अंतर्गत अपील केवल प्रथम आदेश (original order) के विरुद्ध दायर की जा सकती है, क्योंकि नियम में ऐसा स्पष्ट प्रावधान है।
कानून में कहीं भी यह नहीं कहा गया है कि यदि अपीलीय न्यायालय (Appellate Court) द्वारा निषेधाज्ञा प्रदान की गई हो या अस्वीकृत की गई हो, तो उसके विरुद्ध उच्च न्यायालय में पुनः (second) अपील दायर की जा सकती है। धारा 104(2) स्पष्ट रूप से यह व्यवस्था करती है कि अपील के आदेश के विरुद्ध पुनः कोई अपील नहीं की जा सकती।
परिणाम: अतः यह अपील अविवेकपूर्ण (misconceived) पाई गई और खारिज (dismissed) कर दी गई।
निष्कर्ष: अपीलीय आदेश के विरुद्ध पुनः अपील दायर करने का कोई प्रावधान सिविल प्रक्रिया संहिता में नहीं है। ऐसी अपीलें विधिक दृष्टि से ग्राह्य नहीं हैं।
