The Court clarified that an order rejecting an application under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not appealable, either under Order XLIII or any other provision of the CPC; thus, any challenge must be brought before the appropriate forum through the correct procedural route. This holding upholds the settled position and guides practitioners on maintainability in civil appellate practice.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | FMA/1440/2025 of PRATAP R DARYANANI Vs BIMLA DEVI PUN AND ORS |
| CNR | WBCHCA0394142025 |
| Date of Registration | 19-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 27-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, HON’BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Division Bench (HON’BLE JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, HON’BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts within jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure |
| Questions of Law | Whether an order rejecting an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC is appealable? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that the impugned order rejecting an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC is not appealable, either under Order XLIII of the CPC or by any other means provided in the Code. The Division Bench dismissed the present appeal solely on grounds of non-maintainability and granted liberty to the appellant to pursue proper remedies before the appropriate forum. The Court expressly clarified that it did not enter into the merits of the underlying dispute. This judgment reaffirms the procedural route regarding challenges to orders on plaint returns and will serve as binding authority within its jurisdiction. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The matter arose from rejection of an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC. The unsuccessful party sought to challenge the order via appeal (FMA No. 1440 of 2025) before the High Court, but its maintainability was contested and ultimately not sustained. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts deciding similar questions on the non-appealability of orders under Order VII Rule 10 CPC |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that an order rejecting an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC is not appealable under Order XLIII or otherwise.
- Practitioners must approach the correct forum (not by appeal) for challenges against such orders.
- The High Court expressly clarified that it did not examine the merits, strictly confining the decision to maintainability.
- Ensures procedural discipline by foreclosing direct appeals in such cases and guiding parties to proper remedies.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted the respondents’ preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal, arguing that the impugned order is not appealable.
- It explicitly considered whether an order rejecting an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC is covered by Order XLIII or any other appellate provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.
- The Bench held that such an order is not made appealable under the CPC.
- As a result, the appeal (FMA No. 1440 of 2025) was dismissed purely on grounds of non-maintainability.
- The appellant was given liberty to pursue alternative remedies before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
- The Court was careful to clarify that it had not entered into the merits of the dispute.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- Sought to challenge the rejection of an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC by way of appeal.
Respondent:
- Objected on the ground that the impugned order is not appealable under Order XLIII of the Code or otherwise.
Factual Background
- The dispute arose out of the trial court’s rejection of an application filed under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
- The unsuccessful party (appellant) filed an appeal (FMA No. 1440 of 2025) in the Calcutta High Court seeking redress.
- The maintainability of the appeal was contested by the respondents.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court considered Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which concerns the return of plaints.
- Further, the Court examined the provisions of Order XLIII of the CPC addressing appealable orders.
- It held that rejection of an Order VII Rule 10 application is not an appealable order under these provisions or any other provision of the Code.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court granted liberty to the appellant to withdraw the certified copy of the impugned order, upon furnishing a duly attested photocopy.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law on the non-appealability of such orders is reaffirmed.