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.
1. Leave granted.
2. Our order dated 13.10.2025 reads thus;-
“1. Heard Mr. Nirav Majumdar, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners.
2. We find the impugned order prima facie a bit
unusual. The Appellate Court says that since the
suit has been dismissed, no interim relief can be
granted in an appeal. The High Court has affirmed
such finding.
3. Issue notice returnable on 10.11.2025.
2
4. Dasti service, in addition, is permitted.
5. Parties are directed to maintain status quo as
regards the nature, character and possession of the
suit property.”
3. The respondents-original defendants although served
with the notice issued by this Court yet have chosen not to
remain present before this Court and oppose this appeal.
4. This appeal arises from the order passed by the High
Court of Gujarat dated 10.06.2025 in Special Civil
Application No.7298 of 2025 by which the petition filed by
the appellant herein invoking the supervisory jurisdiction
of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution came
to be dismissed, thereby affirming the order passed by the
appellate court declining to grant the relief prayed for by
the appellants herein pending the final disposal of the
Regular First Appeal.
5. It appears from the materials on record that the
appellants challenged the legality and validity of two
consent decrees passed by the Civil Court on the ground of
fraud by instituting two Civil Suits i.e. (1) Special Civil
Suit No. 1036 of 1999 and (2) Special Civil Suit No. 1035 of
3
1999, respectively.
6. Insofar as the Special Civil Suit No. 1036 of 1999 is
concerned, the same came to be allowed, and the consent
decree challenged therein was set aside. So far as the other
suit is concerned i.e. Special Civil Suit No.1035 of 1999,
the same came to be dismissed.
7. The appellants herein, being dissatisfied with the
dismissal of the Special Civil Suit No. 1035 of 1999,
preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 205 of 2024 in the Court
of District Judge, Vadodara.
8. In the said appeal, the appellants preferred an Exhibit-
5 application, praying that pending the final disposal of
the First Appeal, the original defendants may be directed to
maintain status quo.
9. The appellate court declined to grant the relief as
prayed for, saying that as the suit had stood dismissed
thereby declining to grant the declaration as prayed for
therein, no question of seeking any interim relief in the
First appeal in the form of status quo till its final
disposal would arise. The relevant observations made by the
4
first appellate court below Exhibit- 5 read thus:
“In view of the above provision, the facts of the
present case are that the claim made by the
appellants in the above details has been rejected
by the trial court. Thus, the order passed in the
suit is not to be executed and the appellants are
not adversely affected because the suit filed by
the appellants has been rejected. The suit is not
to be executed, therefore, there is no
possibility of any substantial loss to the
appellants. Thus, since this application lacks
the elements mentioned in C.P.C. Order 41 Rule 5,
the order mentioned in the said provision cannot
be made...”
10. We are constrained to observe that the translation
provided as referred to above is extremely poor and
incorrect.
11. In view of the aforesaid, the appellants went before
the High Court and prayed for the necessary relief. The
High Court also took the same view, saying that since the
suit itself had been dismissed, no question thereafter would
arise for the grant of any interim relief in the appeal
preferred by the appellants.
12. Para 11 of the impugned order passed by the High Court
reads thus:-
“Thus, looking at from any angle, once plaintiff
having lost in suit unless such judgement/decree
set aside by appellate court, question of
granting injunction would not arise.”
13. With all humility at our command, we are of the view
that both the first appellate court and the High Court are
not right in taking such a view.
14. 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. Of
course, the appellant has to make out more than a prima facie
case for the grant of such relief on its own merits.
15. To illustrate, 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.
16. 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.
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.
23. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order passed by
the High Court is set aside. So also the order passed by the
District Court dated 25.11.2024 is set aside.
24. We could have remitted the matter to the High Court for
8
fresh consideration. However, we deem fit to remit the matter
to the District Court for fresh hearing of the original
application-Exhibit-5 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 205 of
2024.
25. The appellate court shall hear all the parties concerned
afresh and pass an appropriate order on its own merits in
accordance with law.
26. Let Exhibit-5 application filed in Regular Civil Appeal
No. 205 of 2024 be heard and disposed of within a period of
two months from today.
27. Till the disposal of the Exhibit 5, referred to above,
the interim order passed by this Court shall continue to
operate.
28. The parties shall appear before the District Court on
1st December, 2025 and produce this order passed by us today.
29. On production of this order, the court concerned shall
fix one particular date for fresh hearing of the Exhibit-5
application filed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 205 of 2024.
30. With the aforesaid, this appeal stands disposed of.
31. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
...................J.
[J.B.PARDIWALA]
...................J.
[K.V. VISWANATHAN]
New Delhi
18th November, 2025.
No comments:
Post a Comment