Every civil court deals with miscellaneous matters in the shape of interlocutary applications. Whether a party is seeking for an interim injunction or seeking permission to inspect documents or merely seeking an adjournment, interlocutary applications are filed.

Chapter V, sub-chapter A of the Civil Rules of Practice deals with interlocutory applications. Rule 53, C.R.P. points out those interlocutory applications shall contain the same cause title as in the main proceedings.

Interlocutory applications [I.A.s] are usually filed a petition, along with affidavit albeit they can be filed in the shape of verified petitions (whenever the rules prescribe so).

What is more important with reference to I.A.s is the bar created by Rule 55 of C.R.P. This is a new rule which did not figure in the earlier C.R.P. The rule envisages that an interlocutory application shall contain a single distinct relief.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

If several reliefs are combined in a single, application, the court may either direct the petitioner to confine the application to any one of the reliefs claimed through the application or the court may reject such an application containing multiple reliefs.

A reference may be made in this regard to Rule 28 C.R.P. which contemplates an application for amendment made under Order 1 Rule 10, Order 6 Rule 17 or Order 22 C.P.C. shall contain a prayer for consequential amendments.

The rule further ordains that the application shall be rejected if it does not contain the reliefs regarding consequential amendments. In order to protect such a position envisaged by Rule 28 C.R.P.

it is provided by Rule 55 C.R.P. that the dictum that an application shall contain a single relief is not applicable to cases where various reliefs claimed through the I.A. are consequential reliefs.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Rule 56 C.R.P. is a peculiar provision which is observed more in its breach traditionally for the reasons best known to judiciary or more precisely to the bar and the bench. Rule 56 C.R.P. points out that an interlocutory application which does not seek for a substantive relief but merely prays for the dismissal of any other application has to be rejected with costs.

In practice, day in and day out, I.As are filed for the restoration of another I.A like an application under Order 39, Order 9, Order 22, Order 6 Rule 17 and Section 5 Limitation Act are very very common. Despite Rule 56 C.R.P. such applications have been entertained by the courts uniformly.

After an I.A is entertained, notice should go to the opposite party unless the court considers it fit and proper to grant an interim relief ex parte.

Rule 58 C.R.P. envisages three clear days notice in I. As unless the court orders otherwise. If the court orders notice to the other side, when the other side appears reasonable opportunity is accorded to the other side to put forth its version in the shape of a counter. Arguments are advanced by both sides thereafter.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

The granting of interim relief ex parte is an exception rather than the rule. Order 39 Rule 3 contemplates the granting of an ex parte interim injunction. The Rule provides that in case of grant of ex parte interim injunction the interlocutory application should be disposed of within thirty days [Order 39 Rule 3A C.P.C].

The Order 39 Rule 3 further provides that the court may resort to grant of ex parte interim injunction only when the court is satisfied that any delay and more so delay in the shape of notice to the other side may defeat the very purpose of the application.

Except in exceptional circumstances, no relief is granted ex parte to an applicant. When the case falls within the exceptions for the grant of relief exercising its discretionary jurisdiction, it must be borne in mind as to what are the legal principles to be satisfied by the petitioner before the petitioner can obtain an interim relief.

The court must also state though briefly that the petitioner prima facie established those ingredients and that interim relief therefore is ordered. For example, for grant of temporary injunction, the three ingredients are prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. Further the statute itself provides [Order 39 Rule 3 proviso C.P.C.] that the court must be satisfied that delay may frustrate the very claim of the applicant.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Therefore, if an interim injunction is to be granted ex parte by the court, the court should state that the petitioner made out prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and also that he made out that delay by way of notice is likely to defeat his claim before the court grants interim relief to the petitioner.

It would be bad if the order merely points out that the petitioner is granted interim relief in the circumstances of the case, or for the court to state merely that the petitioner has convinced the court that it is a fit case for grant of interim relief and thus interim relief is therefore granted.

The rule holds good with reference to any application disposed of ex- parte whether without notice or whether notice is given to the opposite side and the opposite side remained ex parte.

For instance, if the petitioner filed an application for amendment of pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. the court has to examine whether the amendment sought for would be barred by limitation or otherwise before the relief can be ordered. It is not as though the bar of limitation applies only when the opposite resists the application.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

The bar is so absolute that whether the respondent takes a plea or not, the court shall have to examine the same and the court cannot allow an amendment petition if the proposed amendment is barred by limitation.

If the petition is contested by the opposite side through a counter or a counter affidavit, the applicant and the respondent are heard before I.A on merits is passed.

An important point in this regard is the practice of the courts to receive documents and exhibiting the same tentatively for the purpose of the application. It is a well settled practice for courts to receive documentary evidence laid by either side including affidavits other than the affidavits of the parties known as third party affidavits, make reference to them and pass an order taking them into consideration.

There is controversy regarding the right of the court to receive evidence in the shape of documentary evidence. One of the judges of the Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that documents cannot be exhibited in the I.As whereas the other method has been insisted by other Judges of the Andhra Pradesh High Court who adhere to receiving and exhibiting documentary evidence in I.As.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

In the interlocutory applications, if documents are received and relied upon, the interlocutory application shall make a reference to the document.

Unlike in a regular judgment, it is desirable to clearly describe the documents received in evidence together with their exhibit number in the order of I.A. This is so because in a suit, the evidence would disclose as to what the document is, on whose behalf it is exhibited and about the reliability of the same.

However, in the interlocutory application usually and as a conventional rule there is no oral evidence tested by cross-examination regarding the documents and regarding the purport of the documents.

For this reason it is desirable to explicitly state what the document is in the I.A. It may also be noticed in that the documents exhibited in I.As are exhibited only tentatively for the specific purpose of the specific I.A.

Therefore, a document which is otherwise inadmissible does not become admissible or because the document was admitted and exhibited in the I.A. This reasoning is appreciable and perfect, but the Stamp Act Section 36 says that once a document is admitted in evidence such admission shall not be called in question at any stage of the same Suit or Proceeding on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped.

Therefore the apparent fear in marking the documents is not without reason.

Interlocutory applications are only interlocutory that is, matters arising before the final disposal of the case. Interlocutory orders do not assume finality though they may assume finality insofar as it relates to those matters.

For example in an interlocutory application under Order 22 C.P.C., the court decides whether a particular person is the legal representative or not of a deceased plaintiff or defendant.

The court may have to decide the issue exhaustively, for instance, where the basis for the claim is a will or settlement deed. However, any finding in the interlocutory application regarding the genuineness of the will or the settlement deed is final only for that interlocutory application and not in the suit.

Supposing, the will or the settlement deed or res sub judice in the suit, the finding in the interlocutory application is not binding on the parties in the suit with regard to the same document.

The parties will be at liberty to adduce evidence afresh for the determination regarding the genuineness of the document and can also contest whether the document is legally enforceable or not.

In an interlocutory application for the grant of a temporary injunction the court holds only prima facie enquiry and gives a finding. It is always desirable as is the common practice for many judges to prefix the words “prima facie” whenever a finding is given by the court such as “it is prima facie found that the petitioner has made out balance of convenience in his favour” and” the petitioner prima facie proved the genuineness of Ex-Al.

An interlocutory application shall never contain final findings. Indeed, sometimes the appellate courts make certain observations and remand the case for reconsideration with an observation that the observations made by the appellate court shall not influence the trial court in reconsidering the points.

This usually is claimed by the litigants as unsatisfactory method. If the appellate courts want to give a finding, it is open for them to do so, in which case, the appellate court shall dispose of the matter.

Or else, the appellate court may remand the case to the trial court without giving any finding leaving the matter to the discretion of the trial court once again, but to follow the directions so enunciated by the Appellate Court. Inasmuch as I.As are before any court, particularly I.

As arising under Order 39 C.P.C. the judges do exercise great restraint in passing any findings in favour of or against a party to the case for the parties should not lose confidence in the judge and the parties should not believe that they may not get justice before the court in the main case since the court has already come to a conclusion in the I.As.

For that reason, if there is any necessity, it is suggested that the court may add a clause with reference to the evidentiary value of a document or an affidavit that the document or the affidavit stands proved or not proved and subject to proof so that oral and documentary evidence may be let in to support or contradict the document or the affidavit.

I.A.s are usually decided by affidavits of the parties, and sometimes third party affidavits submitted by the parties; and the documents submitted by the parties being the main anchor. The Judge after hearing arguments advanced by the parties, passes the Order.

Some sempulons parties move the higher Courts, and represent that they were not heard and evidence is essential to come to correct conclusions, and get the order of lower Court set aside and start the ball rolling again. These advocates want to protract the case with one I.A. or the other, putting the adversary to loss of time.

An appellate Court should see the intention when old cases are thus protracted. An I.A. is not expected to be lengthy but, it should contain enough reasons showing why the court could reach such a conclusion. It may be pointed out that a judge can write a meaningful, reasoned and a brief order only if the judge has thoroughly acquainted with the facts of the case and the law.

Therefore, before a judge commences to write judgment he is expected to devote time to ponder over the matter and appreciate all the facts of the case before he commences writing the judgment.