The Supreme Court has clarified a crucial procedural point: appellate courts can grant interim relief, including status quo orders, even if the underlying suit has been dismissed by the trial court. It rejected a restrictive interpretation that dismissal of the suit automatically bars any form of interim protection in appeal. The decision was delivered by a two-judge bench, which emphasized that the power to grant such relief lies not only in trial courts but also in appellate courts, based on their co-extensive jurisdiction.
In the case before the Court, the appellant had filed two civil suits challenging existing consent decrees on grounds of fraud. Of these, one suit was permitted, but the second was dismissed by the trial court. The appellant then filed an appeal and moved the appellate court to grant an order directing the parties to maintain the status quo over the disputed immovable property during the pendency of the appeal. The first appellate court refused this request, reasoning that since the suit had been dismissed, there was no valid decree to stay or enforce, and therefore no basis for an interim order. This decision was affirmed by the Gujarat High Court.
The Supreme Court found this reasoning legally flawed. It held that an appeal is essentially a continuation of the original suit and insisted that appellate courts must have the power to grant interim protection pending disposal of the appeal. According to the Court, the power to grant interim relief serves the vital function of preserving the subject matter of the litigation and preventing irreparable harm until the appeal is concluded.
To that end, the Court identified the key legal parameters that appellate courts must apply when considering an application for interim relief: the existence of a prima facie case in favor of the appellant, the risk of irreparable injury if interim relief is denied, and the balance of convenience between the parties. These principles, the Court said, are well-established in Indian jurisprudence and apply equally at the appellate stage, regardless of whether there is a decree or not.
Critically, the Court strongly criticized the lower courts for relying on Order XLI, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which governs the stay of execution of decrees at the appellate level. The Supreme Court made it clear that reliance on that provision was wholly misplaced in this context. Order XLI, Rule 5, the Court explained, is strictly concerned with stays on execution of a decree and has no application where a suit has been dismissed and no decree exists to execute. It rejected the reasoning that denied interim relief on the ground that there is “no decree,” holding that the existence of a decree is not a precondition for granting status quo protection.
The Court further observed that appellate courts are endowed with wide powers to reassess both facts and law—as well as the evidence on record. When an appeal is before them, they occupy a position similar to the trial court in terms of power to grant temporary protection. The appellate court, therefore, must evaluate the application for interim relief on its own merits, without being bound by the fact that the lower court has dismissed the suit.
In allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the decisions of both the first appellate court and the Gujarat High Court. It directed that the appellate court must revisit the interim application and consider whether to grant status quo or other suitable protection, applying the standard tests of prima facie case, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience. The Court’s order ensures that the appellant can secure meaningful relief while the appeal proceeds.
Through this ruling, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed an important principle of civil procedure and equitable jurisprudence: the rights of parties on appeal should not be stifled by procedural technicalities. Dismissal of the suit does not extinguish the possibility of judicial protection during appeal. Instead, the appellate court must exercise its discretion generously, to prevent injustice that might otherwise arise from delay, irreparable harm, or lack of adequate redress until the appeal is finally disposed of.
In sum, the Court’s decision restores and clarifies the power of appellate courts to issue status quo or other interim measures even in cases where there is no decree, thus protecting parties against arbitrary denial of protection purely on the ground of dismissal. This approach aligns with the broader objective of justice — ensuring that litigation is not rendered meaningless during appeal, and that appeals remain a genuine and effective remedy.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.