1 ______________________________________________________________________________ LPA No. 103/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR. LPA No. 103/2025 CM No. 2652/2025. CJ Court Reserved on 06.05.2025. Pronounced on 29.05.2025 M/S M. R. Industries. …Applicant(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. R. A. Jan, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Humaira Sajad, Advocate. Vs. State (Now UT of J&K and Ors). ...Respondent(s) Through: CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE Judgment .05.2025 (Per Oswal, J) 1. The appellant had filed a suit for injunction against the respondents for restraining them from interfering with its use and occupation of plot of land bearing No. 63-C situated at Industrial Estate Zainakote, Srinagar, before the court of learned Additional District Judge, (for short ‘trial court’) Srinagar. An application for grant of interim injunction was also filed alongside the suit by the appellant, which was dismissed by the learned trial court vide order dated 22.07.2013. 2. Aggrieved of the order dated 22.07.2013, passed by the learned trial court, the appellant filed a Misc. Appeal bearing M. A. No. 141/2013, before the learned Single Judge of this Court which too came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 17.12.2024. 3. Being aggrieved of the same, an application came to be preferred by the appellant under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC seeking review of the 2 ______________________________________________________________________________ LPA No. 103/2025 judgment/order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, however, the learned Single Judge in terms of order dated 17.02.2025, dismissed the review application bearing RP No. 02/2025 filed by the appellant. 4. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 17.02.2025 (for short ‘impugned order’) on the ground that the learned Single Judge has not rightly considered the grounds urged in the review application despite the fact that there was error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated 17.12.2024. 5. A specific query was put to Mr. R. A. Jan, learned Sr. counsel in respect of the maintainability of this intra-court appeal filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in review application without assailing the basic order dated 17.12.2024, which was the subject matter of the review application. 6. Mr. R. A. Jan, learned Sr. counsel for the appellant has submitted that the intra-court appeal against the order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction would not be maintainable as such and the appellant has challenged the order passed in review application only and once the order passed by the learned Single Judge in review application is set aside, then the application for review of order dated 17.12.2024 would be considered by the learned Single Judge afresh. 7. Now the issue that arises before this Court is as to whether the intra- court appeal is maintainable against the order passed in application for review, without assailing the order/judgment, which was sought to be reviewed. 3 ______________________________________________________________________________ LPA No. 103/2025 8. In order to adjudicate the above-mentioned issue, it is apt to extract clause-12 of The Letters Patent as also Section 100-A CPC. "12. And we do further ordain that an appeal shall lie to the said High Court of judicature from the judgment (Not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the said High Court, and not being and order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, and not being a sentence or order passed or made in the exercise of the power of superintendence) of one judge of the said High Court or one judge of any Division Court and that notwithstanding anything herein before provided an appeal shall lie to the said High Court from a judgment of "one Judge of the said High Court or one judge of" any Division Court, a consistently with the provisions of the civil procedure code, made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a court subject to the superintendence of the said High Court where the judge who passed the judgment declares that the case is a fit one for appeal; but that the right of appeal from other judgments of the judges of the said High Court or of such division court shall be to us, our Heirs or Successors and be heard by our Board of Judicial Advisers for report to us." 100.-Aof CPC: 4 ______________________________________________________________________________ LPA No. 103/2025 No further appeal in certain cases: Notwithstanding anything contained in any Letters Patent for any High Court or in any instrument having the force of law or in any other law for the time being in force, where any appeal from an original decree or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie from the judgment, and decree of such Single Judge. 9. In view of section 100-A CPC, no intra court appeal is maintainable, once the Single Judge of the High Court decides an appeal arising from original or appellate decree or order. This position of law is admitted by the learned Sr. counsel, Mr. Jan, and rightly so in view of section 100-A C.P.C. 10. Admittedly, the appellant, without assailing the order sought to be reviewed, has assailed the order of dismissal of review application. The order rejecting an application for review is not appealable in terms of Order 47 Rule 7 CPC, whereas the order grating review is appealable in terms of Order 43 Rule 1(w) of C.P.C. 11. In “Bussa Overseas and Properties Private Limited and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Anr.”, (2016) 4 SCC 696, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “29. Needless to state that when the prayer for review is dismissed, there can be no merger. If the order passed in review recalls the main order and a different order is passed, definitely the main order does not exist. In that event, there is no need to 5 ______________________________________________________________________________ LPA No. 103/2025 challenge the main order, for it is the order in review that affects the aggrieved party. 30. The decisions pertaining to maintainability of special leave petition or for that matter appeal have to be seemly understood. Though in the decision in Shanker Motiram Nale [Shanker Motiram Nale v. ShiolalsingGannusing Rajput, (1994) 2 SCC 753] the two-Judge Bench referred to Order 47 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure that bars an appeal against the order of the court rejecting the review, it is not to be understood that the Court has curtailed the plenary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution by taking recourse to the provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure. It has to be understood that the Court has evolved and formulated a principle that if the basic judgment is not assailed and the challenge is only to the order passed in review, this Court is obliged not to entertain such special leave petition. The said principle has gained the authoritative status and has been treated as a precedential principle for more than two decades and we are disposed to think that there is hardly any necessity not to be guided by the said precedent. (emphasis added) 12. Though the judgment in Bussa Overseas and Properties Private Limited and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Anr.(supra) pertains to the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme 6 ______________________________________________________________________________ LPA No. 103/2025 Court of India under Article 136 of the Constitution, but the proposition of law as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that an appeal cannot be maintained against the order rejecting the application for review, without assailing the order sought to be reviewed, can be made applicable in case of intra-court appeal as well, preferred against the order rejecting application for review, without assailing the order sought to be reviewed. 13. In the present case, the appellant has not challenged the order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, and rightly so in view of bar contained in section 100-A C.P.C. Once the intra-court appeal against the order sought to be reviewed is not maintainable, then the order rejecting an application for review cannot be assailed through the medium of intra-court appeal because there can be no challenge to the order rejecting review application unless the order sought to be reviewed is challenged. 14. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that this intra-court appeal is not maintainable and is as such, dismissed. (RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE SRINAGAR: 29.05.2025. “Abdul Rashid” Whether the judgment is reportable: Yes/No. KARAM CHAND 2025.05.29 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document