Supreme Court: Whether Appellate court can grant interim relief in the appeal if suit was dismissed by trial court?

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. {Para 16}

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. Interim relief is designed to aid the main relief and

ensure that the proceedings are not rendered infructuous. It

aims to prevent irreparable harm that might be caused while

the case is pending final determination.

20. The grant of appropriate relief is a discretionary power

of the appellate court, and the same must be exercised

judicially based on the well-settled principles of a prima

facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience.

21. The court must weigh the potential injury to both

parties. In a given case, the plaintiff whose suit has been

dismissed may be in a position to highlight before the

appellate court a palpable or gross error that might have

been committed by the trial court and on the basis of which

he may be in a position to argue that there are more than

fair chances of his appeal being allowed.

22. In essence, 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.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. ……... OF 2025

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 27549/2025)

MOHAMMADHANIF MOHAMMADIBRAHIM 

PATEL & ORS. V  PALLAVIBEN RAJENDRA KUMAR  

PATEL & ORS.

Dated: 18th November, 2025.

Citation:  2025 INSC 1347.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Whether the Session Judge should permit calling of Chemical Analyser as witness when the case was fixed for judgment?

 It is, thus, clear that the provisions of Section 293 Cr.P.C. are applicable to the Chemical Analysers and Assistant Chemical Analysers /examiners. It is in this background and the legal provisions allowing the trial Court to use the report of Chemical Analyser as evidence in any enquiry, trial or other proceedings, that the prosecution was under obligation to explain the reasons for moving the Court for summoning the Chemical Analyser, that too at a very belated stage when the case was closed for judgment. As such, in my considered opinion, the order of the trial Court directing issuance of summons to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory needs to be set aside.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 127 /2012

Mukesh s/o Ramshankar Shivhare  Vs The State of Maharashtra

CORAM: M.L.TAHALIYANI,J.

DATED : 26th September, 2012

Print Page

Whether Sessions Judge Should Permit Prosecution to Call Chemical Analyser After Closure of Evidence? A Practical Guide on Sections 293, 311 and 313 CrPC

 In criminal trials, few issues create more avoidable confusion than the handling of Chemical Analyser reports. Trial courts often confront a familiar sequence: the prosecution tenders a Chemical Analyser report under Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the report is exhibited subject to objection, the prosecution closes its evidence, and thereafter seeks to call the Chemical Analyser under Section 311 CrPC. The real question is not merely whether the report is admissible, but whether a belated prosecution request to examine the expert should be allowed after closure, particularly when the case has reached the Section 313 stage.

Section 293 CrPC: what it does, and what it does not

Section 293 CrPC permits reports of specified Government scientific experts, including Chemical Examiners, to be used as evidence in inquiry, trial, or other proceeding. The statutory object is procedural convenience: it dispenses with the routine necessity of calling the expert in every case merely to prove the contents of an official scientific report.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Special Court or High Court have jurisdiction to grant ad-interim relief to protect liberty of applicant in offences under Atrocities Act in appropriate cases

Therefore, this court is of the view that the provision of issuance of notice is to be observed at every proceeding as is contemplated by Section 15A(3) of the Act, cannot be construed that it should be at all stages of the same proceedings, and the same would preclude the court to pass any order including grant of ad-interim protection. Any such interpretation would lead to an absurd situation such as without hearing the victim even notice cannot be issued. In absence of any provision creating an embargo on the court to grant such relief, which has been done specifically in provision of Section 18, where the case prima facie case is made out of commission of offence under Atrocities Act, court ceases to have jurisdiction to grant pre-arrest bail, it cannot be so interpreted as sought to be asked by Counsel for Appellant.

{Para 14}

15. There could be variety of situations and eventualities in which for the grant of relief it would become imperative for the court to pass an order without waiting for the service of notice to the informant/ victim. For example, prima facie case is not made out under the act and liberty of such individual is at stake. At various stages different orders are to be passed not affecting rights of the parties, etc.

16. In considered view of this court, appropriate interpretation to Section 15A(3) and (5) would be that right of parties involved in the proceedings cannot be decided finally without notice/hearing to the victim. This however would not take away power of the court to protect the liberty of person in appropriate cases keeping in mind the right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

17. Moreover, it is well settled principle that the prima facie observations made by the Court at interim stage are not binding on the same court while deciding the application finally. Hence, the Special Court is within is power to grant ad-interim bail and issue notice at the same instance.

Ratio: While victims have a statutory right to notice and hearing under Section 15A(3) & (5), this does not curtail the court’s power to grant urgent ad‑interim relief to protect liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The balance lies in hearing the victim before final disposal, but not necessarily before interim protection. Thus, the Special Court/High Court can grant ad‑interim bail and simultaneously issue notice to the victim.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Appeal No. 951 of 2025

Decided On: 27.02.2026

Sahil Ramesh Sonavane Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.M. Joshi, J.

Citation:  MANU/MH/1970/2026,2026:BHC-AS:10270.

Print Page