Appellate Courts Can Grant Interim Relief Even If Suit Is Dismissed By Trial Court : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently observed that an interim relief can be granted by an Appellate Court even when the original suit has been dismissed. “Just because the original suit came to be dismissed, that does not mean that in the pending appeal, the appellate court cannot grant appropriate relief as prayed for.”, observed a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan while setting...
The Supreme Court recently observed that an interim relief can be granted by an Appellate Court even when the original suit has been dismissed.
“Just because the original suit came to be dismissed, that does not mean that in the pending appeal, the appellate court cannot grant appropriate relief as prayed for.”, observed a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan while setting aside the Gujarat High Court's decision which refused the plaintiff's request for a status quo order on the ground that the suit had already been dismissed.
“An appeal is considered a continuation of the original suit, and the appellate court has co-extensive power to grant appropriate interim relief to prevent irreparable injury and preserve the status quo pending the final disposal of the appeal.”, observed the Court adding that “in a suit for specific performance concerning an immovable property, if the relief sought is not granted and the aggrieved party appeals, then an application seeking to maintain the status quo filed before the appellate court cannot be dismissed solely because the suit for specific performance stood dismissed.”a
The appellant had filed two civil suits challenging consent decrees on allegations of fraud. While one suit was allowed, the second was dismissed. Appellant then filed a first appeal before the District Court and sought an interim order to maintain the status quo over the suit property.
The First Appellate Court refused, holding that since the suit had been dismissed, there was no decree to execute and therefore no question of substantial loss relying incorrectly on Order XLI Rule 5 of the CPC. The Gujarat High Court affirmed this view, stating that no injunction could be granted in favour of a plaintiff who had already lost before the trial court.
Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court.
Setting aside the High Court's decision, the Court emphasized that the Appellate Court is not denuded of its power to grant a status quo/interim relief even if the original suit is dismissed, if a plaintiff makes out a prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience.
“The first appellate court can re-examine both questions of fact and law and may re-appreciate the evidence on record. Its powers are as extensive as the original court's, meaning it can reconsider the need for interim protection.”, the court observed, adding that “the appellate court must independently consider the application for interim relief pending final disposal of the appeal on its own merits and the established legal principles. It should not just look into the final outcome of the suit.”
The Court criticized the impugned decision for applying Order XLI Rule 5 CPC to deny interim relief to the Appellant, stating that Order XLI Rule 5 applies only when a decree is being executed, and a stay is being sought at the Appellate Stage. Since the Appellant's suit was dismissed, no decree was passed warranting the invocation of Order XLI Rule 5 CPC.
“What we do not approve is the statement of law that once the suit is dismissed, no interim relief could be granted pending the appeal preferred against such judgment and order passed by the trial court. Further, in our opinion, the reliance placed by the first appellate court on Order XLI Rule 5, while declining to grant status quo, is grossly misplaced. This is because the considerations laid thereunder, such as that of causing substantial loss to the party applying for a stay, can only be considered when a stay is sought on the execution of a decree, which is not the case herein.”, the court observed.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.
Cause Title: MOHAMMADHANIF MOHAMMADIBRAHIM PATEL & ORS. VERSUS PALLAVIBEN RAJENDRA KUMAR PATEL & ORS.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1138
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Nirav K. Majmudar, Adv. Mr. Priank Adhyaru, Adv. Mr. Sangam Lal Pandey, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR
For Respondent(s) : None