High time to take note of frivolous appeals being filed against unappealable orders: SC

The Supreme Court Monday said it is high time that it should take note of frivolous appeals being filed against unappealable orders “wasting precious judicial time” and such unwarranted proceedings at the behest of parties, who can afford to bear the expenses of litigations, must be discouraged.

Observing that courts in the country are already over-burdened with huge pendency of cases, the apex court allowed an appeal challenging the December 2019 order passed by a division bench of the Calcutta High Court with a “token cost” of Rs 5 lakh.

A bench of Justices L N Rao and B R Gavai delivered judgement on the appeal filed by a company and others against another firm in a matter related to alleged infringement of trade mark.

“We find that it is high time that this court should take note of frivolous appeals being filed against unappealable orders wasting precious judicial time. As it is, the courts in India are already over-burdened with huge pendency,” the bench said.

The division bench of the high court had passed the order on an appeal against the single judge order which had granted time to the appellants-defendants to file affidavit­-in-­opposition and had directed to post the matter after three weeks.

The apex court noted in its verdict that the April 2, 2019 order passed by the single judge did not contain the “traits and trappings of finality” and if it is held otherwise, this will open a “floodgate of appeals” for parties who may even challenge the order of adjournment or grant of time to the other side to file affidavit-­in-­reply.

“We are therefore of the considered view that the order dated April 2, 2019 cannot be construed to be a ‘judgment’ within the meaning of clause 15 of Letters Patent and as such, the appeal to the division bench of the high court was not tenable,” it said.

The bench noted it is difficult to “appreciate the anxiety” on the part of the division bench to itself dispose of the interlocutory application instead of relegating it to the court below for its disposal.

It said the hierarchy of trial court and appellate court exists so that the trial court exercises its discretion upon the settled principles of law. “If the appellate court itself decides the matters required to be decided by the trial court, there would be no necessity to have the hierarchy of courts,” it said.

“Though there are various observations made by the division bench of the high court, which in our view are totally unwarranted, we refrain ourselves to refer to them as any comment thereon would unnecessarily prejudice the rights of either of the parties,” it said.

The top court observed that approach of the division bench of the high court in the matter was totally “unwarranted and uncalled for”.

“We therefore find that the present appeal deserves to be allowed with token costs. The respondent­ plaintiff shall pay a token cost of Rs 5 lakhs to the Supreme Court Middle Income Group Legal Aid Society (MIG),” the bench said, while quashing the division bench order.