Review of remand orders remains maintainable after compliance, but only on narrow CPC review grounds.

A review challenge to a remand order remains maintainable even if the remand has already been acted upon and subsequent proceedings have taken place, because the Code of Civil Procedure contains no express or implied bar extinguishing review on that basis. However, review jurisdiction under Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 is narrow and cannot be used as an appeal in disguise. Where the remand was made because the earlier injunction order lacked essential findings and no error apparent or other review ground was shown, the remand order is not liable to be recalled. The challenge therefore fails, while the parties may pursue remedies in the pending appeal.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a review application challenging an order of remand becomes non-maintainable or infructuous because the remand has already been acted upon by the trial court; (ii) whether any error apparent on the face of the record or other review ground was made out to reopen the remand order.

Issue (i): Whether a review application challenging an order of remand becomes non-maintainable or infructuous because the remand has already been acted upon by the trial court.

Analysis: The substantive power of review under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with Order XLVII, is not taken away merely because the remand order has been given effect to and subsequent proceedings have taken place. The Code contains no express or implied bar that extinguishes the right to challenge a remand order by review only because the trial court has proceeded further. The situation was distinguished from cases where the law itself bars the continuation of a challenge at a later stage, and the subsequent order on the injunction application was held not to render the review application infructuous.

Conclusion: The review application was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether any error apparent on the face of the record or other review ground was made out to reopen the remand order.

Analysis: Review jurisdiction is confined to the narrow grounds recognised by Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used for rehearing on merits. The remand order was passed because the original injunction order was cryptic and lacked findings on the essential ingredients for temporary injunction. The earlier order did not record any final or tentative finding on the merits of the rival claims, and any complaint about the trial court's later appreciation of evidence was a matter for the pending appeal against that later order, not a ground to review the remand order.

Conclusion: No ground for review was established and the remand order was not liable to be recalled.

Final Conclusion: The review was held maintainable, but no reviewable error was found in the remand order, so the challenge to that order failed and the parties were left to pursue their remedies in the pending appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Subsequent compliance with a remand order does not by itself render a review challenge infructuous, but review can be exercised only on the limited grounds recognised by the Code and not to reargue the merits of the earlier decision.

---