Interlocutory orders are temporary directions issued during the pendency of a suit, often concerning matters such as injunctions, maintenance, custody, etc. These orders are not final decisions on the merits but are intended to preserve the status quo or protect rights until the matter is fully adjudicated. A crucial question that arises in the appellate jurisdiction is: Can a High Court, while hearing an appeal against such an interlocutory order, go so far as to dispose of the substantive claims of the suit itself?
This article explores this question in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mahendra Magruram Gupta & Anr. v. Rajdai Shaw & Ors., 2025 INSC 651, where the Court emphatically clarified the legal position concerning appellate powers and limits while dealing with interim orders.
Understanding Interlocutory Orders and Appellate Powers
Nature of Interlocutory Orders
An interlocutory order is not a final decision; it does not determine the rights of the parties finally but is made to assist in the proper administration of justice during the pendency of a suit. Examples include:
- Orders granting or denying temporary injunctions
- Orders on applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC
- Interim maintenance orders in family disputes
Appellate Powers Under Civil Procedure Code (CPC)
Section 104 and Order XLIII Rule 1 of the CPC provide for appeals against certain interlocutory orders. The appellate court is required to focus on the legality and propriety of the interim order alone, not on the entire suit’s merit unless exceptional circumstances justify wider scrutiny.
Order XLI Rule 33 CPC allows the appellate court to pass any decree or order which ought to have been passed, even if the appeal is only against a part of the decree. However, this discretion must be exercised judiciously and not to finally dispose of the suit unless it falls squarely within the appellate scope.
Case Summary: Mahendra Magruram Gupta v. Rajdai Shaw (2025)
Facts of the Case
- The appellants filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding a tenanted shop in Mumbai.
- Their plea for temporary injunction was rejected by the Trial Court.
- The appellants filed an appeal against the interlocutory order before the Bombay High Court.
- The High Court, instead of only addressing the injunction issue, went further and virtually dismissed the suit with respect to the declaratory reliefs (prayers (a) and (b)) and decreed the rest (prayers (c), (d), and (e)) based on a concession made by the respondent.
Supreme Court’s Observations
- The High Court’s actions were termed “completely illegal and unsustainable in law”.
- The Supreme Court reiterated that in an appeal against an interlocutory order, the High Court could not have decided the entire suit.
- The legality and admissibility of documents forming the basis of declaratory reliefs were issues of trial, not to be decided at the interim stage.
- The suit was restored to its original number and interim protection against dispossession was granted to the plaintiffs.
Legal Issues and Rulings
1. Scope of Appellate Jurisdiction in Interlocutory Matters
The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by adjudicating on the merits of the suit instead of confining itself to the appeal against the refusal of a temporary injunction. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that:
“In an appeal to the High Court against the order of the Trial Court refusing to grant injunction pending disposal of the suit, the High Court could not have dismissed the substantive portion of the suit itself.”
2. Application of Order XLI Rule 33 CPC
While the High Court attempted to invoke Order XLI Rule 33 CPC to justify its wide-ranging orders, the Supreme Court clarified that:
“The approach adopted by the High Court is completely illegal and unsustainable in law.”
The provision cannot be used to usurp the trial court’s function or pre-judge substantive matters without a full-fledged trial.
3. Premature Evaluation of Evidentiary Documents
The High Court erred in dismissing the declaratory reliefs based on unregistered notarised documents without conducting a trial. The Supreme Court held that:
“There was no occasion for the High Court to consider the two documents while deciding an application for interim relief… The legality, validity, and admissibility of those documents were matters to be considered in the suit during trial.”
Legal Implications of the Judgment
1. Reinforcement of Judicial Discipline
This judgment sends a clear message that appellate courts must exercise restraint and remain within the confines of the appeal before them. It preserves the sanctity of trial proceedings, ensuring that parties have a fair opportunity to present their case.
2. Clarification on Order XLI Rule 33
The decision draws boundaries around the expansive language of Rule 33. It highlights that while the appellate court has powers to mould relief, those powers must be exercised to advance justice—not circumvent procedure.
3. Protection Against Prejudgment
By setting aside the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court reestablished that interim proceedings are not meant to pre-emptively adjudicate rights. The parties’ substantive rights must be determined only after due trial.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Mahendra Magruram Gupta & Anr. v. Rajdai Shaw & Ors. is a reaffirmation of the foundational principles of procedural fairness and appellate restraint. An appeal against an interlocutory order is not a license for the appellate court to dispose of the entire suit, especially when the suit has not gone through the rigours of a trial.
The judgment provides clarity, especially to litigants and legal practition The judgment provides clarity, especially to litigants and legal practitioners, on the limits of appellate authority in interim matters. It safeguards the procedural integrity of civil litigation and ensures that interim proceedings do not become instruments of premature adjudication.
