In this blog post, Nancy Srivastava, a second-year law student at the University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun, discusses interlocutory applications in a writ petition, while contrasting the difference between an original petition and an interlocutory order, and its implementation legally.
Interlocutory Petitions are a type of coincidental proceedings, and they help the last proceedings. An Interlocutory Petition emerges with a perspective to keep the closures of equity from being crushed when the Original Petition can’t address the prompt circumstances. Interlocutory Applications is a support to the principle appeal for an interlocutory relief amid pendency of the original Petition. Courts may grant Interlocutory orders in a divorce lawsuit where the interlocutory application is for maintenance, pending a choice on child support or alimony. Further, courts may likewise issue interlocutory requests where a property is sold or relinquished and give an interlocutory order, keeping the exchange of property until it has settled on an ultimate or final decision. 
Interlocutory Petitions are a type of coincidental proceedings, and they help the last proceedings. An Interlocutory Petition emerges with a perspective to keep the closures of equity from being crushed when the Original Petition can’t address the prompt circumstances. Interlocutory Applications is a support to the principle appeal for an interlocutory relief amid pendency of the original Petition. Courts may grant Interlocutory orders in a divorce lawsuit where the interlocutory application is for maintenance, pending a choice on child support or alimony. Further, courts may likewise issue interlocutory requests where a property is sold or relinquished and give an interlocutory order, keeping the exchange of property until it has settled on an ultimate or final decision. An interim order is fully enforceable until and unless the last order changes it.
Interlocutory Petition under the Civil Rules of Practice, Rule 2 (j) means “ application to the court for any suit, appeal or proceedings already instituted in such court, other than a proceeding for execution of a decree or order.” It is interesting to note that the word “application” is defined in Rule 2 (c) that includes execution application, execution petition and interlocutory application, both written and oral.[i]
Distinction Between Original Petition And Interlocutory Order
There is a parcel of contrasts between original petition and interlocutory application. The goal of the legislature and additionally the judiciary has been to grant Interlocutory applications that try to meet the finishes of equity and help in circumstances where the Original Petition is not adequate to direct the quick circumstances. In any case, there are a few confinements forced on interlocutory applications to avoid superfluous postponement in court proceedings.
Rule 3(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure defines Original Petition as: “Original Petition means a petition whereby any proceeding other than a suit or appeal or proceedings to execute a decree or order, instituted in a court.” The Original Petition refers to the point of origination of the dispute.[ii] An appeal/petition is a request to do something, most usually tended to a government official or public entity. Petitions to divinity are a type of petition called supplication. In the everyday sense, a request is an archive tended to some official and marked by various people. An appeal might be oral instead of composed, and in this 21st century, it might be transmitted using the Internet.
A “petition” is a formal written appeal, made to some official or body having authority to grant it.[iii] A “petition” is a formal written request or prayer for a certain thing to do, the signers of which attach their signatures voluntarily.[iv]
In this case, the petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act started by an original petition in confirmation with rule 1,2 and under Section 26 of the act to make requests and arrangements about the guardianship, upkeep, and instruction of kids. In reality according to this Rule, proceedings under Section 26 of the Act initiated by the method for an Original Petition. In any case, then Rule 2 of the same Rules says that “each different proceedings consequent to the appeal is by an interlocutory application.[v]
Ordinarily and generally ‘interlocutory’ order has to be understood to mean as a converse to the term ‘last order.’ But whatever is not last order cannot be taken as an interlocutory order. If such an interpretation would be placed, the revisionary powers of the Sessions Court or the High Court is rendered nugatory because only such orders on the final determination of the action which are not appealable will become revisable. Evidently, that is not intended by the legislature when it retained the revisionary powers of the High Court under the new Code. Withholding the revisionary power and the bar in the exercise of such power to an interlocutory order is harmoniously interpreted.[vi]
In T.V. Satyanarayana v. Subba Aruna Meenakshi, the question into consideration was whether an appeal lies against the order made by the family court on an application presented under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act granting interim maintenance under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act? It was held that Interlocutory Application” means an application to the Court for any suit, appeal or proceeding already instituted in such Court other than an application for execution of the decree or setting aside the decree or last order made in such suit, appeal or proceeding.” An application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act squarely falls within the meaning of the words “Interlocutory Application,” as it could be made only in the main proceeding under one or the other provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act. Any order passed on such an application would certainly be an interlocutory order.[vii]
Various Facets Of Interlocutory Appeals And Implementation
Interlocutory appeals are made in various case laws to meet different motive of justice. It acts as a rainbow of colors and is interpreted in a broader sense.
The main issue which could be highlighted is whether the Supreme Court could grant a special leave petition at the time of pending disposal of the writ petition under Article 226 of the High Courts? The answer to this is framed in a significant way that Supreme Court will have to satisfy that a prima facie case makes out for doing so. In the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Inderjit Barua and Ors.,[viii] it was held that special leave against an interim order pending disposal of a writ petition is normally not granted by the Supreme Court admitting special leave petition against the part of the order and granting a stay of hearing of the main writ petitions is not likely to ease an early decision of the matter.
The main purpose of the interim order is to keep or save in status quo the rights of the parties during the pendency of the litigation. However, there arises a question “what about the rights of the respondent if the writ petition ultimately fails?” In[ix] Article 226, the purpose and goals of an interim order are held, wherein the Court is also required to put into the scales the need to protect the interest of the respondent before it if the writ petition ultimately fails and uncertainty about their results resolved in respondent’s favor.
In United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon,[x] it was held that normally the Supreme Court does not have the power to interfere with the discretion exercised by the high court to grant the interim order in a pending matter but it is proper to make an exceptions in the cases where the order is under challenge and has the effect of defeating the very object of the legislation enacted by Parliament.
Another important aspect of an interlocutory order is maintaining for the Comity of Courts in a celebrated case-law of Surya Vadanan v. the State of T.N,[xi] the matter concerned of child custody of jurisdiction of the domestic court or foreign court especially at the interim stage held that violation of an interim or an interlocutory order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction have to be viewed strictly if the rule of law has to be maintained. No litigant is permitted to defy or decline adherence to an interim or an interlocutory order of a court merely because he or she thinks that the order is incorrect or has to be judged by a superior court or any other court which have the jurisdiction to do so. It is the general principle that violation of an interim order if not viewed seriously it would have a deleterious effect on the authority of courts to carry out their interlocutory orders or compel their adherence.
The Supreme Court while considering the maintainability of appeals against judgment and interlocutory orders, considered a series of decisions of different Courts rendered on the subject, held that every interlocutory order cannot be regarded as a judgment but only those orders would be judgments which decide matter of moment or affect vital and valuable rights of the parties and which work serious injustice to the party concerned.[xii]
An interlocutory application is not subject to any period of limitation unless otherwise specifically provided by law. The Interlocutory application is nothing but an application in the course of an action. In a broader sense the application under section 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, filed before the company court seeking leave to go ahead with a pending suit or proceeding is an interlocutory application with respect to pending suit. An application for leave to go ahead with a pending suit or proceedings not being such an application for any relief will not attract Article 137 of the Limitations Act, 1963.[xiii]
Each distinct prayer has a separate application– Rule 55: of Civil rules of practice, There shall be a separate application in respect of each distinct relief prayed for.[xiv] When several reliefs combine in one application, the court may direct the applicant to confine the application only to one of such reliefs unless the reliefs are consequential; and to file a separate application in respect of the others.[xv] It is held[xvi] a single petition with multiple requests is not maintainable, and there shall be a separate application in respect of each distinct relief prayed for. A petition to condone the delay in setting aside the ex parte decree being connected with main relief, namely, setting aside ex parte decree, squarely falls under the group of consequential reliefs, which are exempt from the provision of Rule 55 of Civil Rules of Practice[xvii].
No compulsion for interlocutory application to be tried as a suit under the aspect of Section 141 of Civil Procedure Code: it mandates that the procedure provided for in the Code in regard to suit, shall be followed in all the proceedings in any Civil Court as far as possible. The connotation of segment 141 can’t be comprehended to the degree that each interlocutory application is chosen just as it is a suit. The sign is that the method concerning suit must be taken after to the extent it can be made proper or appropriate.[xviii]
No affidavit could be an application: every application has to be made in the form of a petition accompanied by affidavit. It is held that mere filing of an affidavit is not enough compliance with the statutory rules. An affidavit cannot be accepted as a petition.[xix] It is further observed that the Rule under which the application is made must be quoted. When the application is in the High Court, it is not for the Registry of the High Court to advise persons approaching High Court for redressal about provisions of law under which they can ventilate grievances.[xx]
Conclusion
Interlocutory is a lawful term which can allude to an appeal, sentence, announcement, or judgment, given in a halfway stage between the initiation and end of a cause of action, used to give a transitory or temporary choice on an issue. In this way, an interlocutory appeal is not last and is not subject to immediate claim. In many U.S. legal systems, interlocutory orders are not appealable, except for a few extraordinary cases. When the case concludes, any aspect of an interlocutory order that has not become moot is challenged in an appeal from the last judgment.
There is a contrasting nature between an original petition and interlocutory application/order which is to be understood; the original petition refers to where the dispute originates while Interlocutory Petitions are a type of coincidental proceedings, and they are in help to the last proceedings. An Interlocutory Petition starts with a perspective to keep the finishes of equity from being vanquished when the Original Petition can’t address the prompt circumstances. Interlocutory Applications or Interlocutory Petitions are recorded to support the primary appeal for an interlocutory alleviation amid pendency of the principle Petition. The straightforward point in this article is to mainly highlight the interlocutory applications in writ petitions and various case laws to signify the statement.
94 CPC – Supplementary Proceedings: In order to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated the Court may if it is so prescribed – [xxi]
- Issue a warrant to arrest the defendant and bring him before the Court to show cause why he should not give security for his appearance, and if he fails to comply with any order for security commit him to the civil prison;
- Direct the defendant to furnish security to produce any property belonging to him and to place the same at the disposal of the court or order the attachment of any property;
- Grant a temporary injunction and in case of disobedience, commit the person guilty thereof to the civil prison and order that his property is attached and sold;
- Appoint a receiver of any property and enforce the performance of his duties by attaching and selling his property;
- Make such other interlocutory order as may appear to the court to be just and convenient.
References:
[i] https://advocatechenoyceil.com/2014/06/19/differences-between-original-petition-and-interlocutory-petition/
[ii] See Id.
[iii] State ex rel. Jackson v. School Dist. No. 2, 34P 2d 102, 104, 140 Kan 171.
[iv] Davis v. Henderson., 104 SW 1009, 127 Ky 13.
[v] A.R. Munuswamy rajoo v. Hamsa Rani., 1974 87 LW 537(Mad).
[vi] Joshy v. The State., 1986 CriLJ 263.
[vii] ILR 1988 KAR 1074.
[viii] 1980 (Supp) SCC 696.
[ix] Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. Orient Paper and Industries Ltd., 1995 (Supp) 2 717.
[x] 2010 (8) SCC 110.
[xi] (2015) 5 SCC 450.
[xii] Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D Kania and anr., AIR 1981 SC 1736.
[xiii] Harihar Nath v. State Bank of India., 2006 4 SCC 457.
[xiv] http://lawlochanam.blogspot.in/
[xv] See Id.
[xvi] Supriya Cold Storage, Warangal v. K. Sambasiva Rao and others., (2006) 3 ALD 659.
[xvii] Kavali Narayana and others v. Kavali Chennamma., (2005) 1 ALD 672.
[xviii]See Id.
[xix] See Id.
[xx] Bathula Ekambaram v. Develle Peda Venkateswarlu and others., 2010 (3) ALT 239.
[xxi] See Id.
