Interlocutory Orders Under Civil Procedure Code 

In legal proceedings, there are instances where immediate relief is required before the final adjudication of the case. To address such urgent matters, courts have the power to pass interlocutory orders. These orders ensure the protection of the rights and interests of the parties involved while the suit is still pending. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), provides a structured framework for interlocutory orders, particularly under Order 39, Rules 6 to 10. This article provides a detailed analysis of interlocutory orders under CPC, their significance, types, and legal principles governing them.

Definition of Interlocutory Order

An interlocutory order is a temporary order passed by a court during the pendency of a case. Such orders do not decide the substantive rights of the parties but provide immediate relief when the need arises. The primary purpose of an interlocutory order is to prevent irreparable harm, maintain status quo, or ensure the proper administration of justice before the final decision.

According to Webster’s Dictionary, an interlocutory order is an order that is not final or conclusive. In simple terms, these orders deal with ancillary matters and do not conclude the main issue in a lawsuit.

Purpose of Interlocutory Orders

The primary objectives of interlocutory orders are:

1. Preservation of Subject Matter – To protect property, documents, or evidence from destruction or alteration.
2. Preventing Irreparable Harm – To avoid any action that may cause irreversible damage to any party before the final verdict.
3. Ensuring Fair Trial – To maintain status quo and prevent undue advantage to any party.
4. Facilitating Judicial Process – To regulate procedural aspects like security for costs, appointment of receivers, and attachment of property before judgment.

Legal Basis of Interlocutory Orders in CPC

Interlocutory orders are covered under various provisions of CPC, 1908, including:

Order 39: Temporary Injunctions and Interlocutory Orders

Order 39 specifically deals with temporary injunctions and interlocutory orders, ensuring that parties do not take unfair advantage while the case is pending. Rules 6 to 10 provide the legal framework for interlocutory orders.

Other CPC Provisions for Interlocutory Orders

• Order 24 – Payment into Court.
• Order 25 – Security for Costs.
• Order 26 – Commissions.
• Order 38 – Arrest Before Judgment.
• Order 38 – Attachment Before Judgment.
• Order 40 – Appointment of Receiver.

Types of Interlocutory Orders

Temporary Injunctions (Order 39, Rules 1-5)

A temporary injunction is an order restricting a party from performing specific acts that could affect the outcome of the case. The court grants an injunction if:

• There is a prima facie case.
• There is a possibility of irreparable damage.
• The balance of convenience favors the applicant.

Interim Sale (Order 39, Rule 6)

When property involved in a case is perishable or subject to natural decay, the court may order its interim sale to prevent loss.

Detention, Preservation, and Inspection of Property (Order 39, Rule 7)

The court may order the detention, preservation, or inspection of property involved in litigation to prevent tampering or damage.

Entry into Land or Building (Order 39, Rule 8)

If necessary, the court may permit a party or appointed individual to enter a building or land for examination, taking samples, or performing experiments to gather evidence.

Depositing Money or Property in Court (Order 39, Rule 10)

If a party admits holding money or property in trust for another party, the court may order it to be deposited into the court’s custody.

Legal Principles Governing Interlocutory Orders

The Supreme Court and High Courts have established principles to determine when interlocutory orders should be granted. These include:

Doctrine of Res Judicata in Interlocutory Orders

Interlocutory orders do not decide the merits of a case. Hence, the principle of res judicata (preventing re-litigation of the same issue) does not apply.

• Erach Boman Khavar vs. Tukaram Sridhar Bhat – Supreme Court held that res judicata applies only when an issue is decided on merits.

Amendment of Pleadings and Interlocutory Orders

Courts have discretion to allow amendments if they meet two conditions:

• The amendment does not cause injustice.
• It is necessary to determine the main controversy.
• Pirgonda Hongonda Patil vs. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil – Established that all necessary amendments should be allowed unless they cause prejudice.

Appeals and Revision Against Interlocutory Orders

Appeal Against Interlocutory Orders

• General Rule: No direct appeal lies against interlocutory orders.
• Exception: Appeals are permitted if the order significantly affects the final decision.
• Section 105 CPC: Allows objections against interlocutory orders in appeals against the final decree.

Revisional Jurisdiction (Section 115 CPC)

• High Courts have limited power to revise interlocutory orders.
• Only orders involving jurisdictional errors can be reviewed.
• Tek Singh vs. Shashi Verma – Supreme Court restricted High Court’s power to interfere in interlocutory orders.

Challenges and Misuse of Interlocutory Orders

While interlocutory orders serve a crucial role, they are often misused to cause delays in litigation.

• Frivolous Applications: Some litigants file unnecessary interlocutory applications to delay proceedings.
• Judicial Overburden: Excessive reliance on interlocutory orders leads to congestion in courts.
• Preventive Measures: Courts are increasingly imposing costs on frivolous interlocutory applications.

Landmark Case Laws on Interlocutory Orders

1. Arjun Singh vs. Mohindra Kumar – Held that after a case is reserved for judgment, no further interlocutory applications should be entertained.
2. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. UOI – Supreme Court imposed a fine of ₹10 lakhs for misuse of interlocutory applications.
3. Nitish Kumar Case – Delhi High Court imposed a cost of ₹20,000 on the Bihar CM for filing a frivolous interlocutory application.

Conclusion

Interlocutory orders are an essential part of civil litigation, helping protect parties and maintain judicial efficiency. However, their misuse has led to delays and unnecessary litigation. Courts must balance judicial discretion with strict scrutiny to ensure interlocutory orders serve their true purpose – preserving justice and protecting rights without delaying the final verdict. Proper implementation of costs and penalties for frivolous applications can help streamline the judicial process and ensure fair and speedy justice.