Letters Patent Appeal can be filed only against orders having traits of finality: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that a letters patent appeal (LPA) against an order of single-judge can be filed only if such order has trappings of finality [Shyam Sel and Power Limited v. Shyam Steel Industries Limited]..A bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai held that each and every order passed by a single-judge of High Court cannot be treated as 'judgment' and if the same is permitted, it will open a floodgate of appeals.For an order to be construed as a ‘judgment’, it must have the traits and trappings of finality, the Court emphasised.Otherwise, parties may even challenge an order of adjournment or an order granting time to the other side to file counter affidavit."To come within the ambit of ‘judgment’, such an order must affect vital and valuable rights of the parties, which works serious injustice to the party concerned. Each and every order passed by the Court during the course of the trial, though 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’. If such is permitted, the floodgate of appeals would be open against the order of Single Judge," the Court said.The Court was hearing an appeal against an order of a division bench of the Calcutta High Court. The division bench had allowed a letters patent appeal filed by respondent-plaintiff against a single-judge order which, in a suit for infringement of trademark and passing off, had directed the appellant-defendants to file counter affidavit in two weeks and postponed the hearing of the application seeking injunction..Senior Counsel Mukul Rohatgi appearing on behalf of the appellants, contended that the single-judge order cannot be regarded as a ‘judgment’ within the meaning of clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the High Court and the appeal to the division bench was not maintainable. The order of the single-judge was neither a final judgment nor a preliminary judgment not an intermediary/ interlocutory judgment, appellants contended before the apex court.On the other hand, Senior Counsel Neeraj Kishan Kaul, appearing on behalf of the respondents, contended that division bench of the High Court had rightly interfered with the order passed by the single-judge. He submitted that “it is a settled principle of law that an order of injunction would be issued wherever an infringement of a registered trade mark is established.”.The Court held that a letters patent appealt cannot be entertained against orders which do not have traits and trappings of finality. In this case, the top court observed that there was no adjudication of rights of the parties for them to get an ad interim injunction during the pendency of the suit. The order given by the single-judge might cause some inconvenience but without adjudication of the rights of the parties, the same order cannot be treated as a ‘judgment’ for the purposes of LPA, the apex court made it clear.“What the learned single-judge has done by the said order, was to grant two weeks’ time to the appellants-defendants to file affidavit in opposition and postpone the issue of grant of ad interim injunction by three weeks,” the judgment observed.If there was no conclusive finding as to whether the respondent-plaintiff was entitled for grant of ad interim injunction or not, then it cannot be considered as ‘judgment’ of the court, the Supreme Court held.Any order passed by the Court would not amount to a judgment and only where an order vitally affects a valuable right of the defendants, it will be treated as a judgment within the meaning LPA, the Court underscored. In the instant case, the single-judge order only gave an opportunity to the appellant-defendants to file their affidavit-in-opposition within a period of two weeks. The order further clarified that no prayer for extension of time shall be granted to the appellant. Therefore, there was no adjudication regarding any rights of the respondent, the Court concluded.“We are therefore of the considered view that the order dated 2nd April 2019 [of Single Judge] 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,” the Court ruled.The top court further suggested that the division bench of the High Court should have directed the single-judge to hear the interim application of the respondent-plaintiff speedily, but should not have interfered with the order.“It is difficult to appreciate the anxiety on the part of the Division Bench of the High Court to itself dispose of the interlocutory application instead of relegating it to the court below for its disposal,” the Court said..The Supreme Court therefore allowed the appeal and also imposed costs of ₹5 lakh on respondent-plaintiff for filing appeal against a single-judge order which had merely granted time to file a counter affidavit. “As it is, the courts in India are already overburdened with huge pendency. Such unwarranted proceedings at the behest of the parties who can afford to bear the expenses of such litigation, must be discouraged.”The costs will be payable to the Supreme Court Middle Income Group Legal Aid Society (MIG), the Court said. .[Read Judgment]