Remand appeal maintainability under CPC remains intact despite later consequential trial court orders passed after remand.

An appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(u) CPC against a remand order remains maintainable on its own footing even if the trial court later passes a consequential order after remand. Section 105(2) creates a disability only where the remand order itself is not challenged; it does not bar the remand appeal merely because subsequent proceedings have occurred. The remand order retains independent existence, and any order passed in pursuance of it depends on the validity of the remand. Setting aside the remand would also undo the consequential proceedings, so a separate appeal against the later order is not required.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against an order of remand becomes barred or infructuous because the trial court, in pursuance of the remand, has already passed a final order on the preliminary issue.

Analysis: The statutory scheme confers an independent right of appeal against an order of remand where an appeal would lie from the decree of the appellate court. Section 105(2) creates a disability if the remand order is not challenged, but the Code does not contain any express or implied bar that makes the appeal against remand unavailable merely because the trial court has later passed a consequential order. The remand order retains an independent existence, and the later order passed under the remand is dependent upon the validity of that remand. If the remand order is set aside, the proceedings and order passed in consequence of it fall with it. Requiring a separate appeal against the consequential order would defeat the statutory appeal against remand and would force unnecessary or even futile litigation.

Conclusion: The objection to maintainability was rejected. The appeal against the remand order remained maintainable despite the subsequent order passed by the trial court.

Final Conclusion: The Court upheld the appellant's right to pursue the remand appeal and held that the subsequent trial court order did not extinguish or nullify that appellate remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: An appeal specifically provided against an order of remand is maintainable on its own footing and is not rendered infructuous by a later consequential order passed in pursuance of that remand, because the remand order and the proceedings flowing from it have an independent and dependent relationship governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

---