Appeal dismissed as rejection of review application not a 'judgment' under Delhi HC Act

The appeal against the rejection of the application for review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC was deemed not maintainable by the court. It was held that an order rejecting such an application does not amount to a 'judgment' under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966. The court emphasized that only orders directly impacting valuable rights qualify as judgments, and in this case, the order merely declined to interfere with a previous order affecting the appellant's rights. The court dismissed the appeal, stating that the appropriate remedy was to appeal against the original order.

---

---

Issues:
1. Maintainability of the appeal against the rejection of the application for review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC.
2. Whether an order rejecting an application for review amounts to a 'judgment' within the meaning of Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by defendant No.3 against the rejection of the application for review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC. The plaintiff's counsel objected to the maintainability of the appeal, citing Rule 7 of Order 47 CPC, which states that an order rejecting the application for review is not appealable. The Court agreed with the objection and dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. The Court emphasized that the limitation imposed by Rule 7 of Order 47 must be adhered to by the applicant seeking review.

2. The Court examined whether an order rejecting an application for review qualifies as a 'judgment.' Referring to previous judgments, the Court highlighted that not every order can be considered a judgment, but only those that directly and immediately affect valuable rights of a party. The Court concluded that the impugned order did not decide directly and immediately any valuable right of the appellant. The order merely refused to interfere with an earlier order, which adversely affected the appellant's rights. The Court clarified that the appropriate remedy for the appellant was to appeal against the original order dated 30.8.90. Moreover, the Court referenced a Supreme Court decision to support the view that an order rejecting an application for review does not meet the criteria to be classified as a judgment.

3. The Court also discussed the tests laid down by the Supreme Court to determine if an interlocutory order amounts to a judgment. These tests included whether the order decides matters of moment, affects vital and valuable rights of the parties, and works serious injustice to the parties concerned. Applying these tests to the present case, the Court found that an order rejecting an application for review did not satisfy any of the criteria to be considered a judgment. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable, with no order as to costs.

---