Assignment on Civil Procedure Code & Limitation Act

Title: Interlocutory Order

Name: Dathranghok Robert Sean Pajat

Roll No. : 19
Semester: Eight (8th) of February 2023- July 2023
Name of institution: Department of Law, North Eastern Hill University,
Shillong.
Submitted to: Dr. N. Kumar

0
 Table
Sl No. Content Pg No.

1 Introduction 3

2 Meaning of Interlocutory Orders 4

3 Purpose of Interlocutory Orders 5

4 6
Interlocutory applications for Amendment in pleadings

5 Interlocutory Application at the stage where a case is 7

posted for judgment
6 8-9
Application of ‘Res judicata’ in interlocutory
applications
7 Interlocutory Orders 10-12

8 Appeals against interlocutory orders

13

9 Appeal under Latter Patent 14-15

10 Interlocutory Applications 16

11 Frivolous Applications and Sanctions attached against it 17-18

12 Conclusion 19

13 Bibliography 20

1
 Case Laws Table

Sl No. Content Pg No.

1 Gorakhpur v.Bhagwan Das 6

2 Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil 6

3 Laxminarayan Enterprises vs Laxminarayan Textile 7

4 Rabiya Bi Kassim M Vs. The Country-Wide Consumer 7

Financial Service Ltd

5 Arjun Singh vs Mohindra Kumar 7

6 Erach Boman Khavar vs Tukaram Sridhar Bhat & Ors 8

7 Life Insurance Corporation of India vs Sanjeev builders 14

Pvt. Ltd. and ors

8 Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania and Anr 14

9 Grape vs. Loam 17

10 Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action Vs UOI and 18

others

2
 Introduction
The process for submitting interlocutory petitions is rather essential in civil
proceedings in order to fulfil the goals of justice and to provide the parties with
prompt justice.

"Interlocutory application" refers to a request made to the court in connection with

a suit, appeal, or other procedure that has already been brought before that court,
except a case involving the execution of a judgement or order. Interlocutory orders
are the names given to the decisions made in certain applications. Interlocutory
orders are those that are not final decisions, according to Webster's New World
Dictionary. All following applications are referred to as interlocutory applications
once an action has been started.

The prerogative of a court when handling an interlocutory application is not to

delve into important legal issues that call for in-depth justifications and careful
consideration; as a result, the courts avoid facts whose resolution might have an
impact on the outcome of the original lawsuit.

Part III of the Code of Civil Procedure contains the clause addressing incidental
proceedings. However, these requests are made in accordance with a number of
sections of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, such as requests for the appointment
of Commissioners, temporary injunctions, receivers, court payments, security for
reason, etc. As stated on the website of the Honourable Supreme Court, there are
382 distinct nomenclatures for interlocutory applications in total.

According to Section 141 of the CPC, the Code of Civil Procedure's suit procedure
must be followed, to the extent that it can be made applicable, in all proceedings in
any court with civil jurisdiction. As a result, the procedure with regard to such
applications is the same as that of the original suit, in terms of things like recording
evidence, questioning witnesses, etc.

This article attempts to address a variety of topics related to interlocutory

applications and orders issued in response to such applications. It addresses
numerous C.P.C. statutes and attempts to clarify the present state of the law by
citing various court decisions.

3
 Meaning of Interlocutory Orders
Interlocutory orders are also known as interim orders. The term “Interim” means
temporary, provisional, short term, for the time being, meanwhile, not final,
intervening, etc. Thus, interlocutory or interim orders may be described as those
orders which are passed by the court during pendency of the suit. Such orders are
of temporary nature. They are intermittently passed during the period between
institution of a suit and its final disposal. Such orders do not finally determine the
rights and liabilities of parties to a suit. The court makes interlocutory orders as
may appear just and convenient.

4
 Purpose of Interlocutory Orders
The interlocutory orders are necessary to deal with and protect the right of the
parties in the intervening period between commencement of proceeding and its
final adjudication. They enable the court to grant such relief or to pass such order
as may be necessary, just and equitable. They also prevent any abuse of process
during pendency of proceedings.

5
Meaning of Injunction
An Injunction is an equitable remedy
within the kind of a writ that compels
a party to do or
refrain from specific acts. It is a court
order that restrains one of the parties
to a suit in equity
from doing or allowing others who are
under his control, an act that is unjust
to the other party.
An injunction clearly forbids a
particular form of conduct is a remedy
that originated within the
English Courts of equity.
Like other equitable remedies, it has
traditionally been given when a wrong
once effectively

6
remedied by an award of monetary
damages. Injunctions are supposed to
form whole again
somebody whose rights are
violated. However, while deciding
whether or not to grant
additionally Injunction, Courts
conjointly take into consideration the
interests of non-parties (that
is, the general public interest).
Once deciding whether or not to allow
an Injunction, and deciding what its
scope ought to be,
Courts provide special attention to
queries of fairness and straightness.
One manifestation of this

7
is often that Injunctions are subject to
equitable defenses, like laches and
unclean hands.
Meaning of Injunction
An Injunction is an equitable remedy
within the kind of a writ that compels
a party to do or
refrain from specific acts. It is a court
order that restrains one of the parties
to a suit in equity
from doing or allowing others who are
under his control, an act that is unjust
to the other party.
An injunction clearly forbids a
particular form of conduct is a remedy
that originated within the
English Courts of equity.

8
Like other equitable remedies, it has
traditionally been given when a wrong
once effectively
remedied by an award of monetary
damages. Injunctions are supposed to
form whole again
somebody whose rights are
violated. However, while deciding
whether or not to grant
additionally Injunction, Courts
conjointly take into consideration the
interests of non-parties (that
is, the general public interest).
Once deciding whether or not to allow
an Injunction, and deciding what its
scope ought to be,

9
Courts provide special attention to
queries of fairness and straightness.
One manifestation of this
is often that Injunctions are subject to
equitable defenses, like laches and
unclean hands.
Meaning of Injunction
An Injunction is an equitable remedy
within the kind of a writ that compels
a party to do or
refrain from specific acts. It is a court
order that restrains one of the parties
to a suit in equity
from doing or allowing others who are
under his control, an act that is unjust
to the other party.

10
An injunction clearly forbids a
particular form of conduct is a remedy
that originated within the
English Courts of equity.
Like other equitable remedies, it has
traditionally been given when a wrong
once effectively
remedied by an award of monetary
damages. Injunctions are supposed to
form whole again
somebody whose rights are
violated. However, while deciding
whether or not to grant
additionally Injunction, Courts
conjointly take into consideration the
interests of non-parties (that
is, the general public interest).

11
Once deciding whether or not to allow
an Injunction, and deciding what its
scope ought to be,
Courts provide special attention to
queries of fairness and straightness.
One manifestation of this
is often that Injunctions are subject to
equitable defenses, like laches and
unclean hands.
Meaning of Injunction
An Injunction is an equitable remedy
within the kind of a writ that compels
a party to do or
refrain from specific acts. It is a court
order that restrains one of the parties
to a suit in equity

12
from doing or allowing others who are
under his control, an act that is unjust
to the other party.
An injunction clearly forbids a
particular form of conduct is a remedy
that originated within the
English Courts of equity.
Like other equitable remedies, it has
traditionally been given when a wrong
once effectively
remedied by an award of monetary
damages. Injunctions are supposed to
form whole again
somebody whose rights are
violated. However, while deciding
whether or not to grant

13
additionally Injunction, Courts
conjointly take into consideration the
interests of non-parties (that
is, the general public interest).
Once deciding whether or not to allow
an Injunction, and deciding what its
scope ought to be,
Courts provide special attention to
queries of fairness and straightness.
One manifestation of this
is often that Injunctions are subject to
equitable defenses, like laches and
unclean hands.]
Interlocutory applications for Amendment in pleadings
Principles which govern the granting or disallowing of amendments under Order 6
Rule 17 CPC was discussed in North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur
v.Bhagwan Das1. The court, in this case, stated that Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C
postulates amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings.

Further in Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil2 which still holds
the field, it was held that;

1
North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das, (2008) 8 SCC 511
2
Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil, 1957 AIR 363

14
“ all amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions:

1. of not working injustice to the other side, and

2. of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in
controversy between the parties.
Amendments should, therefore, be refused only where the other party cannot be
placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct, but the
amendment would cause him an injury which could not be compensated in costs.”

Although Order VI Rule 17 permits amendment in the pleadings “at any stage of
the proceedings”, but a limitation has been embedded by means of the proviso to
the fact that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial is
commenced. Reserving the Court’s jurisdiction to order for allowing the party to
amend pleading on being satisfied that in spite of due diligence the parties could
not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.

Order 6 Rule 17 consists of two parts. Whereas the first part is discretionary (may)
and leaves it to the court to order the amendment of pleading. The second part is
mandatory (shall) and prompts the court to allow all amendments which are
necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between
the parties3.

The proviso, therefore, to an extent has curtailed absolute discretion to allow

amendment at any stage.

Interlocutory Application at the stage where a case is posted for

judgment
In Laxminarayan Enterprises vs Laxminarayan Textile 4 the learned single judge of
Karnataka High court allowed the applications under Sub-Rule (4) of Order XVIII
and Order IX Rule 6 C.P.C and observed that the Court may for the reasons to be
recorded, direct or permit any party to examine any witness at any stage.

But after the CPC (Amendment) Act, 1999, Sec 17-A of order XVIII was omitted
which allowed the production of evidence at any stage. The decision rendered by
3
Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. Vs. K.K. Modi & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC
4
Laxminarayan Enterprises v. Laxminarayan Textile ILR 2000 KAR 820

15
the division bench of the Karnataka High court in Rabiya Bi Kassim M Vs. The
Country-Wide Consumer Financial Service Ltd5 has settled the position with
respect to the production of evidence at any stage of the proceedings. Once the
matter has been finally heard and posted for judgment, as held by the Supreme
Court in Arjun Singh vs Mohindra Kumar6 nothing is required to be done by the
Court except to pronounce the judgment, and therefore the decision in
Laxminarayan enterprises’ has become a nullity.

5
Rabiya Bi Kassim M v. The Country-Wide Consumer Financial Service Ltd 2004 (4) KLJ 189
6
Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar 1964 SCR (5) 946

16
 Application of ‘Res judicata’ in interlocutory applications
As an interlocutory application does not encroach upon the merits of the
controversy between parties an order pursuant to such applications cannot be
regarded as a matter affecting the trial of the suit.

An interlocutory order in like of an issue of injunction, or appointment of a

receiver, or an order of attachment before judgment cannot be viewed as an issue
affecting the trial of the suit. Therefore where the question arose that whether
adding a defendant to suit by amending the pleadings was a matter affecting the
trial of the suit, the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court stated that “Such an order could
not be taken to be a step in the trial of the suit. Whether a party should or should
not be impleaded did not encroach on merits of the controversy between parties. It
is a matter of a formal nature and could not in any way determine their respective
rights7”

Until and unless the issue is not decided on merits, the plea of principles of res
judicata has no application, as per the judgment reported in Erach Boman Khavar
vs Tukaram Sridhar Bhat & Ors8, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as
follows:

“It is clear as crystal that to attract the doctrine of res judicata it must be manifest
that there has been a conscious adjudication of an issue. A plea of res judicata
cannot be taken the aid of unless there is an expression of an opinion on the merits.
It is well settled in law that principle of res judicata is applicable between the two
stages of the same litigation but the question or issue involved must have been
decided at an earlier stage of the same litigation.”

An order staying the suit under Section 10, C.P.C. does not prevent the Court from
making interlocutory orders such as orders for a Receiver or an injunction or an
order for attachment before judgment9.

As the interlocutory orders do not decide any matter in issue arising in the suit nor
do they put an end to the litigation and do not decide the legal rights of the parties
to the litigation, the principle of res judicata does not apply to the findings on
which these orders are based. If a similar application is made for similar relief on

7
Surendra Sawhney v. Murlidhar and Ors. 2007 (3) ILR (Raj) 693
8
Erach Boman Khavar v. Tukaram Sridhar Bhat & Ors AIR 2014 SC 544
9
Amita Kaushish and Ors. v. Sanjay Kaushish and Ors. JIT 1995 (8) SC 50

17
the basis of same facts after the earlier application has been disposed of, the court
would be justified in rejecting the application as an abuse of process of the court.
But when there are changed circumstances the court is perfectly justified in
entertaining a second application.

18
 Interlocutory orders
Interlocutory orders are passed by the courts to prevent irreparable harm from
occurring to a person or property during the pendency of a lawsuit or proceeding.

Rules 6 to 10 of Order 39 mention certain interlocutory orders 10, which include the
court’s power to order the interim sale of movable property, to order the detention,
preservation or inspection of any property which is the subject-matter of such suit.
Similarly, when the land in the suit is liable to Government revenue or is tenure
liable to the sale and the party in possession neglects to pay the revenue or rent, the
court may order any other party to the suit in case of sale of the land to be put in
immediate possession of the property.

Rule 6: Power to order interim sale—

The Court may, on the application of any party to a suit, order the sale, by any
person named in such order, and in such manner and on such terms as it thinks fit,
of any movable property, being the subject-matter of such suit, or attached before
judgment in such suit, which is subject to speedy and natural decay, or which for
any other just and sufficient cause it may be desirable to have sold at once.

Rule 7: Detention, preservation, inspection, etc., of subject-matter of suit—

(1) The Court may, on the application of any party to a suit, and on such terms as it
thinks fit,—

(a) make an order for the detention, preservation or inspection of any property
which is the subject-matter of such suit, or as to which any question may arise
therein;

(b) for all or any of the purposes aforesaid authorise any person to enter upon or
into any land or building in the possession of any other party to such suit; and

(c) for all or any of the purposes aforesaid authorise any samples to be taken, or
any observation to be made or experiment to be tried, which may seem necessary
or expedient for the purpose of obtaining full information or evidence.
10
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

19
(2) The provisions as to execution of process shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to
persons authorised to enter under this rule.

Rule 8: Application for such orders to be after notice—

(1) An application by the plaintiff for an order under Rule 6 or Rule 7 may be
made at any time after institution of the suit.

(2) An application by the defendant for a like order may be made at any time after
appearance.

(3) Before making an order under Rule 6 or Rule 7 on an application made for the
purpose, the Court shall, except where it appears that the object of making such
order would be defeated by the delay, direct notice thereof to be given to the
opposite party.

Rule 9: When party may be put in immediate possession of land the subject-
matter of suit—

Where land paying revenue to Government, or a tenure liable to sale, is the

subject-matter of a suit, if the party in possession of such land or tenure neglects to
pay the Government revenue, or the rent due to the proprietor of the tenure, as the
case may be, and such land or tenure is consequently ordered to be sold, any other
party to the suit claiming to have an interest in such land or tenure may, upon
payment of the revenue or rent due previously to the sale (and with or without
security at the discretion of the Court), be put in immediate possession of the land
or tenure;

and the Court in its decree may award against the defaulter the amount so paid,
with interest thereon at such rate as the Court thinks fit, or may charge the amount
so paid, with interest thereon at such rate as the Court orders, in any adjustment of
accounts which may be directed in the decree passed in the suit.

20
Rule 10: Deposit of money, etc. in Court—

Where the subject-matter of a suit is money or some other thing capable of

delivery and any party thereto admits that he holds such money or other thing as a
trustee for another party, or that it belongs or is due to another party, the Court may
order the same to be deposited in Court or delivered to such last-named party, with
or without security, subject to the further direction of the Court.

21
 Appeals against interlocutory orders
Generally speaking, no appeal lies against an interlocutory order, but certain
interlocutory orders can still be challenged in appeal against decree on the ground
that such orders are of such character as would alter the decision of the court on
merits and hence, can be challenged.

Section 105 reads as:-“Save as otherwise expressly provided no appeal shall lie
from any order made by a court in the exercise of its original or appellate
jurisdiction, but, where a decree is appealed from, any error, defect or irregularity
in any order affecting the decision of the case, may be set forth as a ground of
objection in the memorandum of appeal11.”:

While the first part of the sub-section states that no appeal would lie against any
order unless they fall into any of the provisions contained in Section 104 and Order
43, R. 1 the second part states that objections can be raised against the
interlocutory order in the memorandum of appeal filed against the decree in the
suit in which the interlocutory order was made, if the error, defect or irregularity in
making the same affects the decision of the case on the merits.

The error, defect or irregularly within the meaning of Section 105, therefore, must
mean an error, defect or irregularity in procedure in law and not in a matter of fact.

11
Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

22
 Appeal under latter patents
Clause 15 of Letters Patent 12 provides for intra-court appeals against the judgment
of Single Judge of the High Court. The right to file an L.P.A depends upon
whether or not the decision of the Single Judge appealed from affects the merits of
the question between the parties and their valuable rights.

Order must be a ‘Judgement’

In order to ascertain whether an order to is a ‘judgment’ or an ‘interlocutory order’,

it must of the parties have an effect of affecting the rights of the parties and further,
it would also depend on whether or not, it has finally decided the rights. For an
order to be a ‘judgment’, it is not always necessary that it should put an end to the
controversy or terminate the suit. An ‘interlocutory order’ determining the rights of
the parties in one way or other is also a ‘judgment’.

In Life Insurance Corporation of India vs Sanjeev builders Pvt. Ltd. and ors 13., the
court held that the order allowing the application 14 impleading respondent as
assignee after 27 years of the filing of the suit vitally affects the valuable rights of
the appellant. The order allowing amendment of the plaint by impleading
respondent No.3 as ‘Plaintiff No.3’ decides a vital question which concerns the
rights of the parties and hence is a ‘judgment‘ to maintainable under the Letters
Patent Appeal.

Further, in Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania and Anr15, the above point
was reiterated as the Hon’ble court observed that ‘whenever a trial Judge decides a
controversy which affects valuable rights of one of the parties, it must be treated to
be a judgment within the meaning of the letters patent’.

In the course of the trial a trial Judge may pass a number of orders whereby some
of the various steps to be taken by the parties in prosecution of the suit may be of a
routine nature while other orders may cause some inconvenience to one party or
the other, e.g., an order refusing an adjournment, an order refusing to summon an
additional witness or documents, an order refusing to condone delay in filing
documents, after the first date of hearing an order of costs to one of the parties for

12
Clause 15 – Appeal from the courts of original jurisdiction to the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction
13
Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev builders Pvt. Ltd.and others, 2018 (2) CDR 344 (SC)
14
Order XXII Rule 10 CPC
15
Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania and Anr. (1981) 4 SCC 8

23
its default or an order exercising discretion in respect of a procedural matter
against one party or the other.

It was thus held that –

“Such orders are purely interlocutory and cannot constitute judgments because it
will always be open to the aggrieved party to make a grievance of the order passed
against the party concerned in the appeal against the final judgment passed by the
trial Judge”

24
 Interlocutory applications
Delay in dispensing justice is a malaise that has frustrated the judiciary of this
country and which has created a considerable outcry from the diligent litigants,
stay of proceedings is one of the specially inbuilt delay mechanisms in civil cases.

The delay is oftentimes due to protracted arguments on interlocutory applications.

This practice ends up affecting the original suit and therefore speedy disposal ends
up becoming a farce as the courts keep on entertaining endless arguments on
motions for interim reliefs.

The practice of filling I.As has become a matter of routine for the lawyers and is
resorted to many a time to thwart the proceedings in a suit or to evade the
compliance of any order passed against such party. There is an umpteen number of
cases where unscrupulous litigants take undue advantage by invoking the
jurisdiction of the Court by Filing interlocutory applications. Frivolous litigation
clogs the wheels of justice making it difficult for the courts to provide speedy
justice to the genuine litigants. A lot of judgments or orders of the Court are not
permitted to acquire finality. It is one of the serious issues concerning the sanctity
and credibility of the judicial system in general.

25
 Frivolous applications and sanctions attached against it
The present system of imposing meager costs in civil matters, no doubt, is wholly
unsatisfactory and does not act as a deterrent to tactics like “buying-time”, or
evading compliance of court orders. More realistic approach relating to costs may
be the need of the hour16.

The law commission of India in its report 17 had proposed amendments in CPC to
curb such practice by imposing heavy costs on such applicants.

“Section 35A (Compensatory costs for false or vexatious claim/defense) should be

recast as set out in paragraph 8.19 to have a better check against false and
frivolous litigation. The thrust of the proposed amendment is to raise the ceiling
from Rupees three thousand to Rupees One lakh “

An important principle was laid down in Grape vs. Loam18 and is still followed
even now in the United Kingdom in recent cases. The headnote in the above case
reads thus: “Repeated frivolous applications for the purpose of impeaching a
judgment having been made by the same parties, the Court of Appeals made an
order prohibiting any further application without leave of the Court.

Even the law commission has tried to address the growing menace of vexatious
litigations in the high courts and courts subordinate to high courts. The Law
Commission on ‘Prevention of Vexatious Litigation’ in our High Courts and
Courts subordinate to the High Courts. Earlier, a law on this subject was enacted in
the former State of Madras19 and has been in force as the, and also in the State of
Maharashtran wherein it is called the 1971 but similar enactments have not been
enacted in the other States.

There are not much of riders on such unscrupulous litigants as even if a party
doesn’t appear on the fixed date, and therefore arrives late he is still entitled to
have his suit or application restored upon showing sufficient cause or on payment
of costs20.

16
Ashok Kumar Mittal v. Ram Kumar Gupta (2009) 2 SCC 656.
17
Costs in Civil Litigation’ Report No.240
18
Grape v. Loam: (1879) 39 Ch. D. 168
19
Madras Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act, 1949
20
Chhotalal v Ambalal Hargovan AIR 1925 BOM 423

26
The practice of filing frivolous applications is not just limited to ordinary litigants
but the same is also done by people occupying high posts. Another example of
obstructive litigation undertaken to avoid responsibility is one of the then Chief
Minister of Bihar, Mr. Nitish Kumar. An interlocutory application was filed in a
copyright infringement suit by Nitish Kumar under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to strike off his name from the array of
Defendants, the Delhi High Court finding the application frivolous had imposed
cost of Rs.20,000 on the Bihar Chief Minister for filing the application21.

Repeated interlocutory applications is clearly an abuse of the process of law and

would have the far-reaching adverse impact on the dispensation of justice.

Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action Vs UOI and ors

A classic example of keeping the litigation alive by filing I.As can be found in the
case of Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action Vs UOI and others 22. Very strange
and extraordinary litigation where even after fifteen years of the final judgment of
the court the litigation was intentionally kept alive by filing one interlocutory
application or the other in order to avoid compliance of the judgment. The
applicants in this case through Interlocutory Applications tried to evade the
payment of the amounts as remedial measures by reopening issues already settled
by the Hon’ble Supreme court. Therefore the court on finding these interlocutory
applications being totally devoid of any merit accordingly dismissed with costs of
Rs. 10 lakhs in both the Interlocutory Applications

21
Atul Kumar Singh v Nitish Kumar and others. order dated, 2/08/2017
22
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action Vs Union of India (UOI) and others. (2012) 1CompLJ 360 (SC)

27
 Conclusion

Respect for law is one in all the

cardinal principles for an effective
operation of the Constitution,
law and also the well-liked
Government. The religion of the folks
is that the source and succor to
invigorate Justice tangled with the
efficacy of law. The principle of
Justice is implanted in our
conscience and though ours may be a
nascent democracy that has currently
taken deep roots in
our attribute of assessment -- be it
Judicial, Quasi-Judicial or body as
hallmark, the faith of the

28
folks within the effectiveness of
Judicial method would be enlightened,
if the parties area unit
permissible to abuse its method and
allowed to travel Scotchman free.
It is however the first duty and highest
responsibility of the Court to correct
such orders at the
earliest and restore the boldness of the
litigant public, within the purity of
fountain of Justice;
take away stains on the effectiveness
of Judicial adjudication and respect for
Rule of Law, lest
people would lose religion in the
Courts and take recourse to extra-
constitutional remedies which

29
may be a death-knell to the Rule of
Law
Respectfor lawisone inallthecardinal
principlesforaneffective operationof
theConstitution,
law and alsothe well-liked
Government. The religion of the
folksis that thesource and succor to
invigorate Justice tangled with the
efficacy of law. The principle of
Justice is implanted in our
conscience and though ours may be a
nascent democracy that has currently
taken deep roots in
our attribute of assessment -- be it
Judicial, Quasi-Judicial or body as
hallmark, the faith of the

30
folks within the effectiveness of
Judicial method would be enlightened,
if the parties area unit
permissible to abuse its method and
allowed to travel Scotchman free.
It is however the first duty and highest
responsibility of the Court to correct
such orders at the
earliest and restore the boldness of the
litigant public, within the purity of
fountain of Justice;
take away stains on the effectiveness
of Judicial adjudication and respect for
Rule of Law, lest
people would lose religion in the
Courts andtake recourse to extra-
constitutional remedies which

31
may be a death-knell to the Rule of
Law.
Respect for law is one in all the cardinal principles for an effective operation of the
Constitution, law and also the well liked government. The religion of the folks is
that the source and succor to invigorate justice tangled with the efficiency of law.
The principle of justice is implanted in our conscience and though ours may be a
nascent democracy that has currently taken deep roots in our attribute of
assessment- be it Judicial, Quasi-Judicial or body as hallmark, the faith of the folks
within the effectiveness of Judicial method would be enlightened, if the parties
area unit permissible to abuse its method and allowed to travel Scotchman free.

It is however the first duty and highest responsibility of the court to correct such
orders at the earliest and restore the boldness of the litigant public, within the
purity of fountain of justice; take away stains on effectiveness of Judicial
adjudication and respect for Rule of Law, lest people would lose religion in the
courts and take recourse to extra-constitutional remedies which may be a death-
knell to the Rule of Law.

Operative orders of injection can’t be ignored and if won’t ignored will not solely
invite the wrath of the court however can invariably have the effect of the court
nullifying the transactions and preventing the defaulting party acting contrary to
injunctions issued till the injunctive relief is in force.

32
 Bibliography
Primary Sources

 The Code of Civil Procedure – Mathur D. N.

 The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Majumdar P. K.

Secondary Sources

 https://lawwire.in/civil-procedure-code-1908
 https://blog.ipleaders.in/interlocutory-applications
 https://lawgic.info/interlocutory-orders-india/

33