Premature challenge to resolution plan reconsideration rejected where no crystallised cause of action was shown.

An appeal challenging an order directing reconsideration of a resolution plan and deferring an interlocutory application was held premature. The impugned order did not finally decide the appellant's intervention request or other substantive reliefs, and those issues were left open for consideration when the revised plan was placed before the adjudicating authority after review by the committee of creditors. As the appellant did not challenge the remand of the plan for reconsideration and the alleged grievance depended on future events, no immediate prejudice or crystallised cause of action was shown. The appeal was therefore not maintainable at this stage.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal against the order directing reconsideration of the resolution plan and deferring consideration of the appellant's interlocutory application was maintainable at this stage, or was premature.

Analysis: The impugned order did not finally decide the appellant's request for intervention or other substantive reliefs in the interlocutory application; those matters were kept open to be considered when the revised resolution plan was placed before the adjudicating authority after reconsideration by the committee of creditors. Since the appellant did not challenge the part of the order remitting the plan back to the committee of creditors, and the claimed grievance was contingent upon future reconsideration and resubmission of the plan, no immediate prejudice or crystallized cause of action was shown.

Conclusion: The appeal was premature and not maintainable at this stage.

---