Review-modified decrees are appealable only in operative form; execution undertakings cannot be expanded by inconsistent procedural positions.

A decree altered on review is appealable only in its operative form, because the original decree no longer survives unchanged once review relief is granted. The text states that an appeal cannot be maintained against a superseded decree, and a cross-objection cannot cure that defect. It also explains that an undertaking in execution remains confined to its intended scope and cannot be enlarged through inconsistent procedural positions. The stated ratio is that review displaces the earlier decree to the extent modified, and procedural inconsistency cannot revive or expand an undertaking beyond its limited effect.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a first appeal against the original decree remained maintainable after the decree had been modified upon review and the review proceedings were still operative in part. (ii) Whether the respondents could rely on the later appellate outcome to contend that the undertaking given by the appellant in execution proceedings revived.

Issue (i): Whether a first appeal against the original decree remained maintainable after the decree had been modified upon review and the review proceedings were still operative in part.

Analysis: Allowing review vacated the original decree to the extent of the review order, and the decree as originally passed ceased to survive in its earlier form. A right of appeal arises against an existing and operative decree, not against a decree that has already been displaced by a review order. The respondents could not maintain a substantive appeal against the whole of the original dismissal decree while simultaneously having obtained partial review relief. The High Court's view that an appeal could be filed in anticipation was not accepted, and the respondents' cross-objection could not cure that defect.

Conclusion: The first appeal was not maintainable against the original decree in the manner entertained by the High Court.

Issue (ii): Whether the undertaking given by the appellant in execution proceedings revived after the subsequent appellate developments.

Analysis: The undertaking was treated as operative only so long as the respondents' suit for specific performance remained undecided in the relevant sense. Once the Court held that the impugned appellate judgment could not stand and the decree for eviction became enforceable, the respondents could not claim revival of the undertaking by relying on their own inconsistent procedural positions. The undertaking could not be enlarged beyond its intended scope.

Conclusion: The undertaking did not revive in favour of the respondents.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgments were unsustainable, the appellant succeeded, and the decree in the eviction matter stood enforceable.

Ratio Decidendi: When a decree is altered or superseded in review, an appeal lies only against the operative decree as it then stands, and a party cannot maintain an appeal against the superseded original decree or revive an undertaking beyond its limited scope by inconsistent procedural choices.

---