The Calcutta High Court has restated that an order rejecting an application under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC is not appealable under Order XLIII or any other provision. This judgment upholds the existing legal position, reinforcing that challenges must be brought through other appropriate forums and confirms binding precedent for subordinate courts.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | FMA/1441/2025 of PRATAP R DARYANANI Vs BIMLA DEVI PUN AND ORS |
| CNR | WBCHCA0394182025 |
| 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: Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya & Uday Kumar |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority for subordinate courts under the Calcutta High Court |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedent |
| Questions of Law | Whether an order rejecting an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC is appealable under Order XLIII or otherwise? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court categorically held that an order rejecting an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC does not fall within the appealable orders enumerated under Order XLIII of the CPC, nor is it appealable under any other provision. Such a rejection order may only be challenged before the appropriate forum via proper procedure, as clarified in the judgment. Merits of the underlying dispute were not examined. The appeal was dismissed solely for want of maintainability. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Appeal challenged the rejection of an application under Order VII Rule 10, CPC. Counsel for the respondents objected to maintainability, asserting the impugned order is not appealable. Court accepted the objection and dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, granting liberty to seek alternate remedies. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts under the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reconfirms that orders rejecting applications under Order VII Rule 10 CPC are not appealable under Order XLIII or otherwise.
- Lawyers must file the correct remedy, such as a revision or other legal avenue, rather than an appeal against such orders.
- The decision did not touch upon the merits of the dispute; it solely addressed the maintainability of the appeal.
- Ensures practitioners do not waste time and resources preferring appeals against non-appealable orders, streamlining court processes.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court relied on the respondent’s preliminary objection that the impugned order—rejection of an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC—is not appealable.
- The bench checked the text and scope of Order XLIII of the CPC and found that such an order is not specified among the appealable orders.
- The court clarified that no other provision of the CPC permits an appeal from such an order.
- Therefore, the division bench dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, explicitly granting liberty to the appellant to pursue proper remedies before the appropriate forum.
- The court stated no opinion on the factual merits and disposed the connected application accordingly.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought to challenge the lower court’s order rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 10, CPC.
Respondent
- Argued that the impugned order is not appealable under Order XLIII or any other provision and requested dismissal of the appeal for non-maintainability.
Factual Background
- The matter originated from a lower court’s order rejecting an application filed under Order VII Rule 10, CPC.
- The appellant preferred an appeal before the Calcutta High Court against the rejection order.
- The maintainability of the appeal was challenged at the outset by counsel for the respondents.
- The court heard both parties solely on the issue of appealability and did not proceed to the merits.
Statutory Analysis
- The court interpreted Order VII Rule 10 (Return of plaint) and Order XLIII (Appealable Orders) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
- It held that an order rejecting an application under Order VII Rule 10 is not enumerated in Order XLIII and thus not appealable.
- No “reading down”, “reading in” or constitutional interpretation addressed.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No separate dissenting or concurring opinions; both Justices were in agreement.
Procedural Innovations
- The court granted leave to the appellant’s counsel to reclaim the certified copy of the impugned order, provided a duly attested photocopy is substituted.
- No new substantive procedural precedent was set beyond restating the maintainability rule.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law on non-appealability of such orders is reaffirmed.