In a successful appeal argued by Remfry & Sagar before the Supreme Court of India, the court was of the view that to come within the ambit of a ‘judgment’, an order must affect vital and valuable rights of parties, causing serious injustice to the party concerned. Rebuking the practice of filing frivolous appeals, it said that each and every order passed by a court during the course of trial, though it may cause some inconvenience to one of the parties or, to some extent, some prejudice to one of the parties, cannot be treated as a ‘judgment’.

In the case at hand, the single judge had postponed the issue with regard to consideration of the prayer of the respondent-plaintiff for grant of ad-interim injunction by a period of a mere three weeks and that too only in order to afford an opportunity to the appellants-defendants to file their affidavit-in-opposition. Therefore, there was no adjudication with respect to the rights of the respondent- plaintiff and the said order as such did not contain the ‘traits and trappings’ of finality to warrant an appeal. If the appellate court itself began to decide the matters required to be decided by a trial court, there would be no necessity to have the hierarchy of courts.

Read our detailed update on the case here: https://www.remfry.com/wp-content/uploads/ShyamSteel.pdf