Delhi High Court Says Withdrawal of Appeal for Filing Review Cannot Be Treated as Unconditional Abandonment of Challenge to Original Judgment
Facts
The appellants had filed appeals against a judgment and preliminary decree dated 22 May 2025. During the hearing, they sought permission to withdraw the appeals so they could first approach the learned Single Judge by filing appropriate review applications. Accordingly, on 10 October 2025, the Division Bench dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The review petitions were subsequently dismissed on 12 December 2025. Thereafter, the appellants filed fresh appeals challenging both the original judgment and the review order. A dispute arose regarding whether withdrawal of the earlier appeals barred the fresh appeals, prompting the appellants to seek clarification/modification of the order dated 10 October 2025.
Issues
- Whether withdrawal of the earlier appeals amounted to an unconditional abandonment of the appellants’ right to challenge the original judgment.
- Whether the order dated 10 October 2025 was intended only to enable the appellants to first pursue review before the Single Judge.
- Whether clarification of the withdrawal order was necessary to remove doubts regarding future appellate remedies.
Appellants’ Arguments
The appellants submitted that they never intended to abandon their challenge to the judgment and preliminary decree. According to them, the appeals were withdrawn solely because certain grievances relating to the proceedings before the learned Single Judge were better addressed through review. They argued that the withdrawal order was understood to mean that if the review petitions failed, they would remain entitled to pursue whatever appellate remedies were otherwise available in law. The clarification applications were filed merely to remove any ambiguity regarding that understanding.
Respondents’ Arguments
The respondents contended that the appeals had been withdrawn after substantial arguments without seeking or obtaining liberty to file fresh appeals. Consequently, the judgment and preliminary decree had attained finality. Relying upon Upadhyay & Co. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Vinod Kapoor v. State of Goa, they argued that withdrawal without express liberty barred any subsequent challenge to the same judgment.
Analysis of the Law
The Court observed that the only issue before it was the true intention behind the withdrawal order dated 10 October 2025. It emphasised that it was not deciding the maintainability, limitation or merits of the subsequently filed appeals.
The Court reiterated that although the statutory right of appeal is a substantive right, it can be waived or abandoned. However, whether such waiver has occurred depends upon the intention reflected in the withdrawal order itself. Since the order expressly recorded that withdrawal was sought to enable the appellants to approach the learned Single Judge, it could not be interpreted as an unconditional abandonment of all future remedies.
The Court further held that its clarification neither created a fresh appellate remedy nor decided whether the new appeals were maintainable; it merely explained the scope and purpose of its earlier order.
Precedent Analysis
The respondents relied upon:
- Upadhyay & Co. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1999) 1 SCC 81
- Vinod Kapoor v. State of Goa (2012) 12 SCC 378
These decisions hold that withdrawal of proceedings without liberty ordinarily bars a subsequent challenge.
The Court distinguished these authorities by observing that, unlike an unconditional withdrawal, the present order expressly recorded that withdrawal was permitted for the specific purpose of pursuing review before the learned Single Judge. Therefore, those precedents did not govern the peculiar facts of the present case.
Court’s Reasoning
The Division Bench found that the earlier withdrawal order expressly mentioned the purpose for which withdrawal had been permitted. The appellants had acted in accordance with that direction by filing review petitions. Therefore, the absence of an express statement preserving future remedies could not be interpreted as extinguishing rights that were never intended to be waived.
The Court clarified that its earlier order merely required the appellants to first pursue their grievances before the learned Single Judge. It was never intended to prevent them from availing any further remedy that might otherwise be available under law after disposal of those proceedings.
At the same time, the Court made it clear that it expressed no opinion on whether the subsequently filed appeals were maintainable or within limitation, leaving all such questions open for the appropriate Bench.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court allowed the clarification applications and modified its earlier order to expressly clarify that withdrawal of the original appeals was only for the limited purpose of enabling the appellants to first pursue review before the learned Single Judge. The withdrawal was not intended to foreclose any further remedy otherwise available in law. However, the Court left all issues regarding maintainability, limitation and merits of the fresh appeals to be decided independently by the Bench hearing those appeals.
Case Details
Case: Prakash Chander v. Vinod Kumari Bhalla & Ors. (connected with Nisha Vats v. Vinod Kumari Bhalla & Ors.)
Court: High Court of Delhi
Case Number: RFA(OS) 48/2025, RFA(OS) 58/2025, RFA(OS) 7/2026 & RFA(OS) 9/2026
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
Date: 31 July 2026
Result: Clarification applications disposed of; Court clarified that withdrawal of the earlier appeals was only to enable review before the Single Judge and was not intended to bar any further remedy otherwise available in law.
