Whether Final Relief Can Be Granted at an Interim Stage of a Suit

In civil litigation, the question of whether a court can grant final relief at an interim stage has long been debated. While the general principle in Indian law is that interim relief is intended to preserve the status quo until the conclusion of a trial, several judicial decisions have recognized circumstances in which courts may grant relief that is tantamount to final relief.

Understanding Interim Relief

Interim relief, also known as interlocutory relief, is a temporary remedy designed to safeguard the rights of parties pending final adjudication. Its primary purpose is to prevent irreparable loss or prejudice that might occur if a party is forced to wait until the conclusion of the trial. Courts exercise this discretion with caution, as premature relief can distort the balance between litigants and pre-empt the outcome of a trial.

Unlike final relief, which conclusively determines the parties’ rights, interim relief is merely protective. It may take the form of a prohibitor injunction (restraining certain acts), a mandatory injunction (compelling an act), or in monetary disputes, an order directing that the disputed sum be deposited into the court’s account or held by an appointed receiver. This ensures that the funds remain under judicial custody and are available for the party ultimately found entitled to them, thereby securing the subject matter of the dispute.

Ordinarily, courts refrain from granting relief at an interim stage that effectively determines the main issue in dispute. In Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd[1]. the Supreme Court of India emphasized that interim orders must not result in granting final relief that can only follow a full trial. Similarly, in Deoraj v. State of Maharashtra[2] the Court observed that interim relief should not substitute for final adjudication, as doing so would undermine procedural fairness and the purpose of a trial.

This principle serves an important function it preserves the judicial process by ensuring that neither party is deprived of their right to present evidence or contest claims before a final verdict is rendered.

Recognized Exceptions: When Courts May Grant Final Relief

Despite the general rule, courts have recognized limited and exceptional circumstances where granting final relief at an interim stage is justified. These exceptions arise primarily from considerations of equity, justice, and the prevention of manifest hardship.

1. Where Facts Are Undisputed and Relief Is Inevitable
   If the material facts are admitted and entitlement is clear, the court may grant relief immediately to prevent unjust delay. In Zenit Mataplast Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [3], the Supreme Court held that interim relief may be granted if the plaintiff’s claim is straightforward and denying it would serve no practical purpose.
2. Where Refusal Would Render the Suit Infructuous
   In Deoraj (supra), the Court recognized that in rare cases where withholding interim relief would make the final relief meaningless, the Court may intervene. The decision clarified that interim relief can, in exceptional situations, “grant final relief itself” if immediate action is necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
3. To Prevent Manifest Injustice or Irreparable Harm
   In Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden [4], the Court upheld a mandatory interim injunction compelling the defendant to vacate the suit property. The Court reasoned that the denial of such relief would cause irreparable injury to the plaintiff, which could not later be rectified by damages.
4. To Protect the Subject Matter Pending Trial
   Where the dispute involves money or property, courts may direct that the amount in question be deposited with the court registry or a neutral custodian. This was recognized in Vishal Gupta v. L&T Finance Ltd[5]. where the Delhi High Court ordered interim relief, which effectively granted final relief, because delay would have caused irreversible prejudice to the applicant’s employment prospects.

Practical Mechanism: How Interim Relief Operates

Applications for interim relief are typically made under Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2, and 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The applicant must establish:
• Prima facie case: A serious, arguable claim supported by evidence.
• Balance of convenience: That granting relief would cause less hardship than refusing it.
• Irreparable injury: Harm that monetary damages cannot compensate.

Under Rule 10 of Order XXXIX, when a dispute involves money or property that one party admits to be due, the court may direct that such amount be deposited into the court treasury or with an authorized officer. This ensures that the sum remains safeguarded and accessible for enforcement of the final judgment, rather than being held by one party.

Illustration: Refund of Settlement Amount

Consider a situation where an applicant paid INR 10 lakhs to a defendant under a proposed settlement that was later withdrawn. The applicant seeks a refund, arguing that retaining the money would cause irreparable harm. Though the relief sought is final in nature, the court may, applying Deoraj (supra) and Zenit Mataplast (supra), direct that the sum be temporarily deposited with the court registry. This protects the applicant’s interest without prejudging ownership, ensuring fairness to both sides.

Infrastructure Contract Dispute

A more complex example can be found in infrastructure and development contracts, where one party terminates the agreement for breach and the other seeks specific performance or a refund of a substantial advance. Suppose a contractor deposited ₹2 crore for project mobilization, and the employer abruptly cancels the contract, invoking a penalty clause. If the contractor seeks a refund at the interim stage, the court faces a dilemma, as granting it could amount to final relief. Yet, given the magnitude of financial prejudice and undisputed deposit record, courts have occasionally ordered such sums to be placed in escrow or under judicial supervision. This balanced approach preserves neutrality while preventing one party from unjustly enriching itself during litigation.

Shareholder Rights and Corporate Governance

In company law disputes, similar complexities arise when minority shareholders seek protection under Sections 241–242 of the Companies Act, 2013. Suppose a minority shareholder is illegally removed from the board, and the company continues to issue shares diluting their stake. Granting interim reinstatement or restraining further share allotment may appear to grant final relief; however, courts and tribunals have intervened to prevent irreversible prejudice. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Cyrus Investments Pvt. Ltd. highlighted that interim measures can be broad and even final in effect if necessary to protect the company’s substratum or uphold corporate fairness. This underscores that equity sometimes demands proactive judicial protection rather than passive restraint.

Balancing Equity and Caution

Indian courts consistently emphasize restraint in granting final relief at an interim stage. In State of U.P. v. Ram Sukhi Devi (2005) 9 SCC 733, the Supreme Court underscored that interim relief must remain proportionate and not exceed what is necessary to prevent injustice. This ensures that judicial discretion is exercised judiciously and not converted into a substitute for trial.

At the same time, courts acknowledge that justice delayed can become justice denied. Where the risk of irreparable harm is immediate and overwhelming, timely intervention, even if it mirrors final relief, upholds the purpose of equitable justice.

Analytical Reflection: Policy and Judicial Balance

Ultimately, the principle reflects the court’s attempt to reconcile two competing objectives the sanctity of due process and the immediacy of justice. Interim proceedings are not meant to pre-empt final outcomes, yet they serve as instruments of equitable control in dynamic commercial and civil settings. The discretion to grant final relief at an interim stage, therefore, must be exercised sparingly but boldly when circumstances compel intervention. This balance defines the evolving character of equitable jurisprudence in India’s civil justice system.

Moreover, from a policy standpoint, this judicial discretion ensures flexibility in a legal framework that often struggles with procedural delays. The courts’ readiness to adapt interim relief principles in commercial and constitutional cases reflects a pragmatic understanding of justice delivery. As civil court caseloads increase, the interim stage often becomes the most decisive stage of litigation. Therefore, evolving jurisprudence that allows narrowly tailored final-type reliefs at this stage can promote efficiency without compromising fairness.

Bridging Perspective: Comparative Jurisprudence

Interestingly, comparative legal systems have adopted similar approaches. English courts, for instance, through the American Cyanamid principles, also permit strong interim injunctions if the plaintiff demonstrates a serious issue to be tried and irreparable harm. Indian courts, while borrowing from these roots, have expanded the doctrine to include preventive and restorative interim measures suited to local realities such as safeguarding deposits, preserving corporate assets, and ensuring environmental compliance. This comparative flexibility strengthens India’s equitable jurisprudence, aligning it with modern trends in global civil procedure.

Conclusion

Indian courts are not absolutely barred from granting final relief at the interim stage. The jurisprudence from Dorab Cawasji Warden to Zenit Mataplast establishes that such relief may be justified when three elements converge: a strong prima facie case, irreparable harm, and a balance of convenience in favor of the applicant.

As illustrated in the INR 10 lakh refund scenario, the Court may direct a protective deposit of the disputed amount under Order XXXIX, Rule 10, CPC, to ensure that neither party gains an unfair advantage before trial.

Ultimately, the principle is not whether final relief can ever be granted at an interim stage, but whether justice, equity, and necessity demand that it should. When used cautiously, this discretion ensures that interim proceedings serve their true purpose to protect rights, preserve fairness, and prevent injustice.

[1] (1985) 1 SCC 260

[2] (2004) 4 SCC 697

[3] (2009) 10 SCC 388

[4] (1990) 2 SCC 117

[5] (2009 SCC OnLine Del 2806)