Interim Relief Can Be Granted Only After Recording Prima Facie Satisfaction On Question Of Maintainability Of Suit If Questioned: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that an interim relief in a suit can be granted only after recording a prima facie satisfaction on the question of maintainability of the suit if the same is questioned.
The court noted that the question of jurisdiction would assume importance even at the stage a court considers the question of grant of interim relief.
The Court observed thus in a recent judgment in which it considered the scope of execution court's power under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The three-Judge Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Dipankar Datta, and Justice Aravind Kumar observed thus: “Where interim relief is claimed in a suit before a civil court and the party to be affected by grant of such relief, or any other party to the suit, raises a point of maintainability thereof or that it is barred by law and also contends on that basis that interim relief should not to be granted, grant of relief in whatever form, if at all, ought to be preceded by formation and recording of at least a prima facie satisfaction that the suit is maintainable or that it is not barred by law."
Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora appeared on behalf of the appellants while Advocate Preetika Dwivedi appeared on behalf of the respondents.
Facts of the Case -
The respondents i.e., the purchasers had filed an objection under Section 47 of the CPC in an execution application filed before the Executing Court by the appellants. It was urged, based on the case pleaded therein, that the decree put to execution was inexecutable. The Executing Court, in 2008, allowed the objections of the respondents, resulting in dismissal of the execution application and a revision was carried by the appellants from the said order before the Revisional Court which, vide its order, dismissed the objection filed by the respondents.
The Revisional Court directed the Executing Court to proceed with the execution of the decree whilst treating such objection as non-maintainable. The revisional order was challenged by the respondents in an application under Article 227 of the Constitution before the Allahabad High Court. The High Court, by its judgment and order, quashed the order passed by the Revisional Court and relegated the parties to the remedy of having their rights, in respect of the suit property, adjudicated by the appropriate forum. Hence an appeal was filed before the Apex Court against the said judgment and order of the High Court.
The Court held that the Executing Court and the High Court were right in holding that the objection raised by the respondents to the executability of the decree was well-founded. It also did analysis of the word ‘jurisdiction’ in detail. In this regard, it observed –
“The essence really is that a court must not only have the jurisdiction in respect of the subject matter of dispute for the purpose of entertaining and trying the claim but also the jurisdiction to grant relief that is sought for. Once it is conceded that the jurisdiction on both counts is available, it is immaterial if jurisdiction is exercised erroneously. An erroneous decision cannot be labelled as having been passed ‘without jurisdiction’. It is, therefore, imperative that the distinction between a decision lacking in inherent jurisdiction and a decision which suffers from an error committed in the exercise of jurisdiction is borne in mind.”
The Court said that the question of jurisdiction would assume importance even at the stage a court considers the question of grant of interim relief. It added that if the court is of the opinion at the stage of hearing the application for interim relief that the suit is barred by law or is otherwise not maintainable, it cannot dismiss it without framing a preliminary issue after the written statement is filed but can most certainly assign such opinion for refusing interim relief.
"Where interim relief is claimed in a suit before a civil court and the party to be affected by grant of such relief, or any other party to the suit, raises a point of maintainability thereof or that it is barred by law and also contends on that basis that interim relief should not to be granted, grant of relief in whatever form, if at all, ought to be preceded by formation and recording of at least a prima facie satisfaction that the suit is maintainable or that it is not barred by law. Such a satisfaction resting on appreciation of the averments in the plaint, the application for interim relief and the written objection thereto, as well as the relevant law that is cited in support of the objection, would be a part of the court’s reasoning of a prima facie case having been set up for interim relief, that the balance of convenience is in favour of the grant and non-grant would cause irreparable harm and prejudice. It would be inappropriate for a court to abstain from recording its prima facie satisfaction on the question of maintainability, yet, proceed to grant protection pro tem on the assumption that the question of maintainability has to be decided as a preliminary issue under Rule 2 of Order XIV, CPC. That could amount to an improper exercise of power.", the bench said.
The Court however clarified that if an extraordinary situation arises where it could take time to decide the point of maintainability of the suit and nongrant of protection pro tem pending such decision could lead to irreversible consequences, the court may proceed to make an appropriate order in the manner indicated above justifying the course of action it adopts.
"Such an order may be passed, if at all required, to avoid irreparable harm or injury or undue hardship to the party claiming the relief and/or to ensure that the proceedings are not rendered infructuous by reason of non-interference by the court.", the Court added.
Cause Title- Asma Lateef & Anr. v. Shabbir Ahmad & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 36)
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR Rahul Narayan, Advocates Shashwat Goel and Palak Vasishtha.
Respondents: AORs Abhishek Chaudhary and Adarsh Upadhyay.
