1. Interim order modified without considering objections — Supreme Court directs party to approach High Court. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2004 Supreme(SC) 743
Supreme Court Of India
R.C. LAHOTI, CJI., G.P. MATHUR AND C.K. THAKKER,JJ.
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA-Petitioner
Versus
SHARDA DEVI AND OTHERS – Respondents
SLP (C) No. 13620 of 2004,
Decided on July 27, 2004
Advocates appeared
R.N. Trivedi, Senior Advocate (H.S. Parihar and Kuldeep Parihar, Advocates) for the Petitioner.
Important Points
The appropriate remedy for a party aggrieved by an interlocutory order is to approach the court that passed the order to seek reconsideration based on the pleadings and legal pleas raised.
Subject
Civil Law - Procedural Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Civil Procedure - Interlocutory Orders - Remedy against modification of interim order - Appropriate course of action for aggrieved party is to approach the court that passed the interlocutory order and seek reconsideration by inviting its attention to the pleas raised in the pleadings. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
In a pending writ petition, the High Court passed an interim order. Subsequently, an application for modification of said order was filed and allowed. The petitioner contended that the modification order was contrary to law and failed to consider various objections and pleas raised in the counter-affidavit filed by the petitioner.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that since the impugned order was merely interlocutory, the proper course of action for the petitioner was to approach the High Court to seek reconsideration of the order by highlighting the pleas available under the law and those already raised in the counter-affidavit.
Issues: Whether a party aggrieved by an interlocutory modification order passed by the High Court should first seek reconsideration from the same court before approaching the highest court.
Ratio Decidendi: For interlocutory orders, the aggrieved party should first approach the court that passed the order to urge and seek reconsideration of the decision based on the pleadings and available legal pleas.
Result: Special leave petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the High Court and the operation of the impugned order suspended for a period of two weeks.
Facts of the case:
In a pending writ petition, the High Court passed an interim order. Subsequently, an application for modification of said order was filed and allowed. The petitioner contended that the modification order was contrary to law and failed to consider various objections and pleas raised in the counter-affidavit filed by the petitioner.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that since the impugned order was merely interlocutory, the proper course of action for the petitioner was to approach the High Court to seek reconsideration of the order by highlighting the pleas available under the law and those already raised in the counter-affidavit.
Issues: Whether a party aggrieved by an interlocutory modification order passed by the High Court should first seek reconsideration from the same court before approaching the highest court.
Ratio Decidendi: For interlocutory orders, the aggrieved party should first approach the court that passed the order to urge and seek reconsideration of the decision based on the pleadings and available legal pleas.
Result: Special leave petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the High Court and the operation of the impugned order suspended for a period of two weeks.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. RBI contended modification order contrary to law and failed to consider its objections. (Para 2 )
3. Better course for party to seek reconsideration from High Court on interlocutory order; operation suspended. (Para 3 , 4 )
4. Where an interlocutory order fails to consider objections, proper remedy is to seek reconsideration from the same court. (Para 3 )
5. Special leave petition disposed of; operation of modification order suspended until High Court hears application. (Para 4 , 5 )
6. What is the proper remedy when an interlocutory order fails to consider a party's objections?
The proper remedy is to approach the same court for reconsideration rather than filing a special leave petition. (Para 3 )
ORDER
1.Heard on the question of admission.
2. The High Court, in a pending writ petition, passed an interim order dated 29-3-2004 after hearing all the parties including Reserve Bank of India, the petitioner before us. Reserve Bank of India had raised very many pleas contained in its counter-affidavit dated 8-4-2004. It appears that the petitioner in the High Court moved an application dated 21-4-2004 seeking modification of the order dated 29-3-2004. The prayer for modification has been allowed. The grievance of Reserve Bank of India is that the impugned order of modification dated 23-4-2004 is contrary to law and does not take into consideration various pleas which were raised on behalf of Reserve Bank of India in its counter-affidavit dated 8-4-2004. The impugned order dated 23-4-2004 does not reflect the objections raised on behalf of Reserve Bank of India having been dealt with.
3. In our opinion, better course to follow for Reserve Bank of India, the petitioner before us, would be to approach the High Court inviting its attention to the several pleas raised in its counter-affidavit and such other pleas as may be available to it under the law to urge and seek reconsideration of the order dated 23-4-2004, which is only an nterlocutory order.
4. That being the position, the operation of the order dated 23-4-2004 is directed to remain suspended till the application filed by Reserve Bank of India, which shall be filed within a period of two weeks from today, is heard and disposed of. The High Court shall be at liberty to pass such order as it deems fit on the application of Reserve Bank of India after hearing all the parties interested.
5. The special leave petition be treated as disposed of in the light of the abovesaid liberty to the petitioner Reserve Bank of India and the observations made hereinabove.
