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

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.