1. Review proceedings following a remand order by a single Judge of the High Court to the First Appellate Court. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 292
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B.Majmudar : Y.K.Sabharwal
Susheela Naik
Versus
G.K.Naik
Case No. : 837 , 838 of 2000
Date of Decision : 2/4/00
Important Points
A judge in review proceedings cannot treat the matter as an appeal, particularly when the original order was a remand for fresh decision to the First Appellate Court, as such an approach is legally unsustainable.
Subject
Civil Law - Civil Procedure
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Civil Procedure - Review vs. Appeal - Scope of review proceedings - When a single Judge of the High Court remands proceedings for fresh decision to the First Appellate Court, another single Judge in review proceedings cannot treat the matter as an appeal - Such an approach is unsustainable. (Paras 3 and 4)
Facts of the case:
A single Judge of the High Court had remanded proceedings for a fresh decision to the First Appellate Court. Subsequently, in review proceedings, another single Judge treated the matter almost as an appeal.
Findings of Court:
The orders passed in review proceedings are unsustainable because they were heard as if they were an appeal. The earlier remand order is confirmed, with the clarification that the question of injunction should be examined based on the prima facie case and the question of title should not be considered on merits to bind parties based on current pleadings. Furthermore, the appellants are prohibited from alienating the suit properties during the pendency of the remanded proceedings.
Issues: Whether a judge presiding over review proceedings can exercise appellate jurisdiction when the original order was a remand for fresh decision.
Ratio Decidendi: Review proceedings are distinct from appellate proceedings; treating a review as an appeal is legally unsustainable.
Result: Civil Appeals allowed.
Facts of the case:
A single Judge of the High Court had remanded proceedings for a fresh decision to the First Appellate Court. Subsequently, in review proceedings, another single Judge treated the matter almost as an appeal.
Findings of Court:
The orders passed in review proceedings are unsustainable because they were heard as if they were an appeal. The earlier remand order is confirmed, with the clarification that the question of injunction should be examined based on the prima facie case and the question of title should not be considered on merits to bind parties based on current pleadings. Furthermore, the appellants are prohibited from alienating the suit properties during the pendency of the remanded proceedings.
Issues: Whether a judge presiding over review proceedings can exercise appellate jurisdiction when the original order was a remand for fresh decision.
Ratio Decidendi: Review proceedings are distinct from appellate proceedings; treating a review as an appeal is legally unsustainable.
Result: Civil Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a judge in review proceedings can treat such proceedings as an appeal against a remand order. (Para 3 )
3. Review proceedings cannot be treated as an appeal; orders based on such a treatment are unsustainable. (Para 4 )
4. A judge exercising review jurisdiction cannot treat review proceedings as an appeal. (Para 4 )
5. Appeals allowed; impugned orders set aside; remand order confirmed with clarifications regarding injunction and property alienation. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
6. Can a judge in review proceedings treat the matter as an appeal?
No, the court held that review proceedings cannot be treated as an appeal, and orders passed on such a basis are unsustainable. (Para 4 )
7. How should the question of injunction be handled in remanded proceedings where title is disputed?
The question of injunction should be examined based on the prima facie case put forward by the plaintiffs, without treating the question of title as a merit-based determination binding the parties. (Para 4 )
S.B.MAJMUDAR, J.
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) BY consent of learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the respondent-caveator these appeals are being disposed of finally.
(3) THE short question is when the learned single Judge of the High Court remanded the proceedings for fresh decision to the First Appellate Court, in review proceedings another learned single Judge could have almost sat in appeal.
(4) IN our view, only on the ground that the review proceedings were heard by treating them almost as appeal, the orders could not be sustained and, therefore, the impugned orders are set aside and the remand order passed by the learned single Judge earlier is confirmed subject to the clarification that the question of injunction agitated by the appellants will have to be examined only on the basis of prima facie case put forward by the plaintiffs concerned and the question of title will not be treated to be required to be considered on merits so as to bind the parties in the light of the pleadings as they stand today.
(5) IT is also clarified that during the pendency of the remanded proceedings the appellants shall not alienate the suit properties.
(6) SUBJECT to the aforesaid clarifications these Civil Appeals are allowed.
(7) NO costs.
