Review rejection is not separately appealable and does not qualify as a judgment for appellate jurisdiction.

An order rejecting a review application under Order 47 CPC is not independently appealable because Rule 7 bars an appeal against such refusal, and the proper challenge lies to the original order sought to be reviewed. The refusal also does not amount to a judgment under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, because it does not directly and immediately determine valuable rights or cause the kind of serious injustice required for appellate jurisdiction. On that reasoning, the appellate challenge to the review rejection was held not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether an appeal lay against an order rejecting an application for review under Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (ii) whether such an order amounted to a judgment within the meaning of Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966.

Issue (i): whether an appeal lay against an order rejecting an application for review under Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: Order 47 provides both the remedy of review and the limitation on appeal. Rule 7 specifically bars an appeal from an order rejecting a review application. A party invoking the review jurisdiction is bound by that limitation, and the appropriate challenge lies against the original order sought to be reviewed.

Conclusion: No appeal lay against the order rejecting review; the objection to maintainability was upheld against the appellant.

Issue (ii): whether such an order amounted to a judgment within the meaning of Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966.

Analysis: An order qualifies as a judgment only if it decides a controversy directly and immediately affecting valuable rights of a party and causing serious injustice. An order merely refusing review does not determine any such right directly; its effect is indirect and remote, while the substantive effect remains attributable to the original order.

Conclusion: The order rejecting review was not a judgment within the meaning of Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966.

Final Conclusion: The appeal could not be entertained because the impugned order was neither appealable under the review provision nor a judgment attracting the appellate jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: An order rejecting a review application is not independently appealable and does not amount to a judgment unless it directly and immediately affects valuable rights of a party.

---