SC cautions on interim orders

An interim relief which would amount to a final order snuffing out the dispute should not be passed by any court, the Supreme Court said while setting aside an order of the Bombay High Court in connection with a property dispute. The high court “committed a fundamental error” by granting relief to a party which could at best be resorted to at the time of the final hearing and not at an interlocutory stage. In this commercial appeal, Samir Narain vs Aurora Properties, the high court ordered the petitioner to hand over eight flats along with 16 car parking spaces to the opposite parties, including a cooperative housing society. The Supreme Court observed that the nature of the high court order passed against him was undeniably a mandatory order at an interlocutory stage. There was a settlement between the opposite parties to which the petitioner was not a party. By asking him to hand over the flats and parking spaces, the high court had exceeded its jurisdiction as complying with the direction would result in bestowing an unfair advantage on the opposite parties, the Supreme Court stated. It also recalled the guidelines it had set while passing interim orders, mainly based on balance of convenience. The judgment said: “An interim mandatory injunction is not a remedy that is easily granted. It is passed only in circumstances which are clear and the prima facie material clearly justifies a finding that the status quo has been altered by one of the parties and the interests of justice demanded that the status quo ante be restored.”