The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a revision petition is not maintainable when it seeks to challenge an interlocutory order passed in an interim injunction application. The Court held that such orders should instead be challenged through writ jurisdiction. In the case before it, a dispute had arisen over a will: the deceased had originally executed a will favoring one party, but later executed subsequent wills in favor of others. After the testator’s death, the successful claimant under the earlier will obtained a mutation of land by concealing the later will.
The petitioner filed a declaratory suit under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act along with an application for interim relief. The Sub-Divisional Officer, acting in the matter, passed an order to maintain the status quo on the land in question, thereby restraining any transfer. The opposing party, unhappy with this interim order, filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner under Section 333 of the Act. That revisional court entertained the challenge and stayed the status-quo order.
Upon review, the High Court found that the revisional court was mistaken in admitting a revision against such an interlocutory order. Justice Irshad Ali noted that the order issued during the interim application was purely interlocutory in nature and did not warrant revisional interference. The Court emphasized that revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked against temporary or interim orders made in the course of an injunction application.
Instead, the court held, the proper remedy lies in a writ petition. Because the interim order had no reasoned basis and appeared to lack sufficient legal justification, the High Court used its writ jurisdiction to quash it. The Court pointed out that the revisional court had not addressed the underlying legal errors, and that its order lacked any substantive reasoning.
By quashing the revision’s outcome and setting aside the stayed status-quo direction, the High Court clarified the limits of revisional power in interlocutory contexts. It made clear that not all orders, especially those granted during interim proceedings, are amenable to revision, particularly when they are temporary in character and do not finally resolve rights.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.