Court’s Decision
The Calcutta High Court allowed the appeal against the interim order passed by the trial court on 20 January 2023 in a suit concerning possession of a shop room. The trial court had directed that the defendant “will not interfere with the possession of plaintiff’s shop room” while also granting status quo. The High Court noted a contradiction in this direction since the plaintiff himself had claimed in the plaint that he was not in possession of the premises. Accordingly, the Court deleted that portion of the order and retained only the direction for maintaining status quo. The Court further directed the trial court to dispose of the interim application pending before it at the earliest.
Facts
The matter arose from a dispute over a shop room. The plaintiff had filed a suit claiming possession of the premises, stating that he was not currently in possession. Despite this, the trial court, while hearing the interim application, passed an order directing the defendant not to interfere with the plaintiff’s possession and also ordered maintenance of status quo. Aggrieved by this contradiction, the defendant preferred an appeal before the High Court, arguing that the interim order erroneously presumed the plaintiff to be in possession.
Issues
- Whether the trial court’s interim order erroneously directed non-interference with the possession of the plaintiff despite the plaintiff admitting lack of possession.
- Whether the direction to maintain status quo was valid in the circumstances.
- Whether the High Court could modify the interim order in an appeal without interfering with the merits of the case.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellant (defendant in the suit) submitted that the impugned order was fundamentally flawed as it granted relief inconsistent with the plaintiff’s own pleadings. It was pointed out that the plaintiff had admitted in the plaint that he was not in possession of the suit premises and had in fact sought possession through the suit. Therefore, the direction that the defendant should not interfere with the plaintiff’s possession was legally untenable and liable to be set aside. The appellants argued that such an order was not only contradictory but also prejudiced their rights.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondent (plaintiff in the suit) attempted to justify the direction granted in the interim order, suggesting that it was necessary to protect the subject matter of the suit and to avoid any further complications during the pendency of the proceedings. However, the respondent did not dispute that he had sought possession in the plaint and did not currently hold it.
Analysis of the Law
The High Court examined the order passed by the trial court in light of the pleadings on record. It applied the settled principle that interim relief must be consistent with the pleadings and prayer sought in the suit. If the plaintiff admits that he is not in possession, an interim order directing non-interference with possession in his favour would be beyond the scope of the pleadings and amount to granting a relief not even prayed for. The Court thus found that the portion of the order restraining interference with the plaintiff’s possession was erroneous on the face of the record.
Precedent Analysis
No specific precedents were cited in the brief order. However, the legal principle applied by the Court draws from the well-settled rule that a court cannot grant interim relief inconsistent with or in excess of the main prayer or pleadings. Interim reliefs must be ancillary to and in furtherance of the final relief sought in the suit. Courts have consistently held that reliefs inconsistent with pleadings cannot be granted at any stage of the proceedings.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the trial court had made a mistake in directing that the defendant “will not interfere with the possession of plaintiff’s shop room” because such a direction was incompatible with the plaintiff’s own assertion in the plaint that he was not in possession of the suit premises. The High Court held that a party cannot simultaneously claim to be out of possession and seek relief to protect possession. Recognising this legal inconsistency, the Court deleted the erroneous portion of the order but retained the general direction for maintaining status quo to preserve the subject matter of the dispute.
Conclusion
The High Court allowed the appeal and modified the interim order by deleting the part which directed that the defendant shall not interfere with the plaintiff’s possession. It retained the order of status quo and directed the trial court to decide the interim application on merits at the earliest. This careful balance ensured that the matter remains protected during litigation without prejudging any factual issues.
Implications
This judgment highlights the need for consistency between pleadings and interim reliefs. Courts cannot grant relief at the interim stage that contradicts or exceeds what has been pleaded in the suit. The decision also clarifies the scope of appellate court powers in modifying interim orders when they appear to be erroneous on their face. It safeguards the rights of litigants against inconsistent or prejudicial orders passed at the interlocutory stage.
Referred Cases and Their Relevance
No specific judgments were cited in this case. However, the Court’s reasoning reflects established principles from previous rulings holding that courts cannot grant reliefs inconsistent with pleadings or prayers. These include broader doctrines established in cases like Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das and State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta which caution against granting interim reliefs that are outside the scope of the main suit.
FAQs
1. Can a court grant interim relief inconsistent with the pleadings of the plaintiff?
No. Interim relief must be consistent with the pleadings. If a plaintiff admits lack of possession, they cannot be granted interim protection over possession.
2. What does ‘status quo’ mean in property disputes?
It means maintaining the current physical and legal state of the property until the matter is adjudicated. No party can alter possession or make structural changes during this period.
3. Can the High Court modify interim orders of the trial court during appeal?
Yes. The appellate court can set aside or modify interim orders if found inconsistent with law or facts on record, even before final hearing.