'Appeals Can Get Interim Relief Even If Suit Was Dismissed': SC Sets Aside Gujarat HC Order
The Supreme Court has held that dismissal of a civil suit does not prevent an appellate court from granting interim relief in the pending appeal, setting aside concurrent findings of the Gujarat High Court and the Vadodara District Court that had refused to entertain a plea for status quo solely because the underlying suit had been dismissed.
The bench of Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice K V Viswanathan held that an appellate court retains full authority to grant interim protection even when the trial court has dismissed the suit, and that courts cannot decline relief on the ground that “once the suit is dismissed, no injunction can be granted".
Court clarified that an appeal is a continuation of the suit, and the appellate forum has coextensive powers to examine facts, law, evidence, and the need for interim protection on its own merits. It further held that the District Court’s reliance on Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure was “grossly misplaced,” since those principles apply only to stay of execution of a decree and not to applications seeking status quo in an appeal arising from dismissal of a suit.
The case pertained to two suits filed in 1999 challenging two consent decrees on allegations of fraud. One suit, Special Civil Suit No. 1036 of 1999, was allowed and the consent decree was set aside. The other, Special Civil Suit No. 1035 of 1999, was dismissed. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the plaintiffs filed a Regular Civil Appeal in 2024 before the District Judge in Vadodara and moved an application seeking status quo regarding the disputed property pending appeal.
The appellate court refused the request, reasoning that since the suit itself had been dismissed and no declaratory relief had been granted, there was no decree capable of execution and therefore no question of substantial loss or irreparable injury arose. On this basis, it concluded that interim relief under Order 41 Rule 5 of the CPC could not be granted.
The High Court upheld this reasoning, observing that “once plaintiff having lost in suit unless such judgment or decree is set aside, question of granting injunction would not arise".
The Supreme Court disagreed and found this approach fundamentally erroneous. It observed that interim relief is meant to protect the subject matter of litigation and ensure that the appeal is not rendered futile. It emphasised that refusal to consider interim protection merely because the suit was dismissed is legally unsustainable.
The bench explained that in many categories of cases, including suits for specific performance of immovable property, an appeal may have strong prospects of success, and permitting the subject property to be altered or transferred during the appeal could cause irreversible consequences.
Court reiterated that interim protection depends on well-established criteria such as a strong prima facie case, likelihood of irreparable harm, and balance of convenience, not on the outcome of the trial court’s judgment. It noted that a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed may still highlight “palpable or gross errors” committed by the trial court and show that there are more than fair chances of the appeal succeeding. The appellate court must evaluate these factors independently and cannot mechanically reject the application on a jurisdictional misconception.
Setting aside the orders of both the High Court and the District Court, the Supreme Court remitted the status quo application back to the District Court for fresh consideration. It directed the District Court to hear all parties afresh and decide the application on its own merits within two months. Further, court directed the parties to appear before the District Court on 1 December 2025. Until the application is decided, the interim status quo order earlier granted by the Supreme Court will continue to operate, the bench directed
Case Title: Mohammadhanif Mohammadibrahim Patel & Ors Vs Pallaviben Rajendra Kumar Patel & Ors
Judgment Date: November 18, 2025
Bench: Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice K V Viswanathan