A decree passed by a trial court following a remand order from a superior court is appealable under Section 96 of the CPC; the bar under Section 105(2) applies to the remand order itself, not the subsequent decree.

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner invokes the extraordinary supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to impugn the legality and propriety of the order dated 23.04.2026 (Annexure P-5), rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal. By way of the impugned order, the learned Appellate Court below erroneously dismissed the petitioner's application dated 20.02.2020 (Annexure P-3) preferred under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’ for short), seeking the summary rejection of the memorandum of appeal. This revision is instituted to rectify a patent jurisdictional error and to ensure that an incompetent appeal is not permitted to remain on the file of the Court.

2. The factual backdrop culminating in the present proceedings is that the petitioners/plaintiffs had initially instituted a civil suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction, which was decided vide decree and judgment dated 26.02.2013. Aggrieved there against, the petitioners preferred a first appeal, which was allowed vide decree and judgment dated 08.01.2015. Thereafter, in Regular Second Appeal (for short ‘RSA’), this Court vide order dated 11.02.2019 remanded the matter to the learned Civil Court for fresh adjudication in the light of the provisions of the Haryana Management of Civil Amenities and Infrastructure Deficient Municipal Area (Special Provision) Act, 2016, while keeping intact the decree and judgment dated 08.01.2015 passed by the learned First Appellate Court. The aforesaid remand order attained finality, no proceedings having been initiated to challenge the same.

2.1. Pursuant to the remand, the learned Trial Court, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering the matter in detail, decided the suit afresh vide decree and judgment dated 06.11.2019. Against the said decree and judgment, the respondents preferred a first appeal before the learned Additional District Judge. The petitioner, in turn, moved an application seeking rejection of the memorandum of appeal on the ground that the appeal itself was not maintainable and that the decree and judgment dated 06.11.2019 were not appealable in view of the embargo contained under Section 105(2) of CPC. However, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the said application vide the impugned order dated 23.04.2026.

2.2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned First Appellate Court failed to appreciate that the decree and judgment impugned before it had been rendered by the learned Trial Court pursuant to, and in strict compliance with, the remand order passed by this Court. It is submitted that, in view of the statutory embargo contained in Section 105(2) of CPC, the said decree and judgment were not amenable to challenge by way of a regular first appeal under Section 96 CPC. It has further been argued that once the matter stood remanded by this Court with specific directions, the jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court became confined to the limited scope of the remand order, and the Trial Court, while adjudicating the matter afresh, effectively acted as a delegate of this Court. Consequently, according to the petitioner, the learned First Appellate Court lacked the jurisdictional competence to entertain