Appeal rights after plaint rejection under Order 7 Rule 11: revisional court's order held not appealable; Article 227 remedy

The dominant issue was whether a second appeal lies under Section 100 CPC (or an appeal under Section 96 CPC) from an order of a revisional court rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The HC held that although rejection of plaint is a "decree"/"deemed decree" under Section 2(2) CPC, the right of appeal is purely statutory and Section 96 permits appeals only from decrees passed by courts exercising original jurisdiction, while Section 100 applies only to decrees passed in appeal; a decree made in revisional jurisdiction is therefore not appealable. Relying on the SC ruling in Frost International, the reference was answered in the negative, and the proper remedy was held to be a petition under Article 227.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(i) Whether a second appeal under Section 100 CPC lies when a court exercising revisional jurisdiction reverses an order refusing rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 and, as a consequence, rejects the plaint (a "deemed decree" under Section 2(2) CPC).

(ii) Whether the availability of an appeal depends primarily on the nature of the order/deemed decree or on the nature of jurisdiction (original/appellate/revisional) in which such order is made, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's pronouncement applied by the Court.

(iii) What is the correct remedy where the first appellate court remands the suit after reversing rejection of plaint, and what limits govern such appeal.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (i) & (ii): Maintainability of second appeal against rejection of plaint by a revisional court

Legal framework discussed: The Court considered Section 2(2) CPC (rejection of plaint as a deemed "decree"), Section 96 CPC (appeal from every decree passed by a court exercising original jurisdiction), Section 100 CPC (second appeal from every decree passed in appeal), and the role of revisional power (including the West Bengal amendment context as discussed in the judgment).

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court accepted that rejection of plaint, even when ordered in revision, answers the definition of "decree" under Section 2(2) CPC. However, the Court held that appealability under the CPC is not determined by the label "decree/deemed decree" alone; it is also controlled by the jurisdictional source specified in Sections 96 and 100. Since Section 96 permits an appeal only from a decree passed by a court exercising original jurisdiction, and Section 100 permits a second appeal only from a decree passed in appeal, a decree resulting from exercise of revisional jurisdiction does not satisfy either statutory gateway for appeals. The Court gave predominance to the nature of jurisdiction over the nature/effect of the order while determining the remedy.

Application of adopted authority: The Court applied the Supreme Court's statement that though rejection of plaint is a decree, when it is done by a revisional court, the appropriate remedy is supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 because the decree is not one passed by a court of original jurisdiction. On that basis, the Court held that earlier views treating such revisional rejection as generating an appealable "appellate decree" were no longer good law to the extent they supported a second appeal remedy.

Conclusion: The Court answered the reference in the negative: no second appeal lies where the plaint is rejected in exercise of revisional jurisdiction; the proper remedy is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Issue (iii): Remedy and limits where the first appellate court remands after reversing rejection of plaint

Legal framework discussed: The Court examined remand under Order XLI Rule 23 CPC and appealability under Order XLIII Rule 1(u) CPC, and held that such an appeal is constrained by Section 100 CPC principles.

Interpretation and reasoning: Where the first appellate court sets aside rejection of plaint on a preliminary point and remands the suit for trial, the order is treated as a remand order appealable under Order 43 Rule 1(u). The Court held that such an appeal, though styled as a miscellaneous appeal, is to be entertained only on the grounds permissible in a second appeal, i.e., on a substantial question of law, and the High Court's scrutiny should remain confined to aspects bearing on the remand order rather than reopening all factual findings.

Conclusion: An appellate remand order under Order XLI Rule 23 is appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1(u), but the High Court can hear it only within the Section 100 CPC constraints (substantial question of law and limited scope relevant to remand).

---