IMPORTANT POINT
If a petition is not maintainable and is ultimately withdrawn, the court should not continue interim relief for a period beyond withdrawal of the writ petition. However, where the matter is heard on merits and after considering the facts of the case the court permits withdrawal of the case. In such a case, the court is at liberty to extend the interim relief or can grant interim relief for a limited period after recording reasons for the same.

JUDGMENT

ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Though the present litigation has a chequered history, we do not propose to go into the details of the litigation for the reason that by virtue of the impugned order dated 20th April, 2010 passed in FAO (OS) 349 of 2009 by the High Court of Delhi, the appellants i.e. the present respondents had been permitted to withdraw the said appeal.

3. It appears that the appeal was substantially heard by the High Court but as the High Court was not persuaded to grant any relief to the appellants therein, the appeal was withdrawn so as to avail alternative remedy available to the appellants.

4. The appeal was permitted to be withdrawn. In normal circumstances, the present appellants, who were the respondents in the said appeal, should not have been aggrieved by withdrawal of the appeal but they are aggrieved because of certain observations made by the High Court while permitting withdrawal of the appeal. The said observations, which have been objected to, are reproduced hereinbelow :

“…All that we wish to observe is what we have said earlier, that the impugned order does, in fact, partake of a prima facie finding.

Nothing in these Orders shall preclude or prevent either of the parties to make legal submissions before appropriate Forums.

On 3.3.2010, we had restrained the Respondent from alienating, selling or creating any third party interest in the Rights issue dated 30.07.2009. When we had passed these Orders, we were desirous only to maintain status quo. We clarify that it was not passed at that stage, weighing the respective strength of the cases. In our view, we think it appropriate and expedient to extend the interim orders upto 10.05.2010.”

5. It was mainly submitted that no such observation could have been made by the Court while permitting withdrawal of the appeal and the interim relief which had been granted earlier in the appeal should not have been continued even after withdrawal or disposal of the said appeal. It is clear from the aforestated order that the interim relief which had been granted during the pendency of the appeal had been extended till 10th May, 2010.

6. The parties have been referred to hereinbelow as they had been arrayed before the Division Bench of the High Court.

7. So far as the observations made in the impugned order with regard to the findings of the learned single Judge are concerned, we are of the view that the said observations cannot be said to be incorrect.

8. Upon perusal of the impugned order, we find that while seeking leave to withdraw the appeal, a request was made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, which has been recorded by the High Court as under:

“He seeks leave to withdraw the Appeal with a clarification that the observation and decision contained in the impugned order should not influence the mind of either of the aforementioned Judicial Forums.”

9. With regard to the aforestated request made on behalf of the appellants in relation to withdrawal of appeal, the High Court observed as under:-

“Since the Appeal has been substantially heard, we are not persuaded to make any observation as prayed for by the Appellant. We shall only state that what is palpable from the legal position that the views and decisions contained in the impugned order are perforce of a prima facie nature.”

10. Thus, upon reading the impugned order, the High Court did not ask the authority, which was to be approached by the appellants, that the observations made by the learned single Judge should be ignored. The order of the learned single Judge was to be challenged by the appellants before another forum and therefore, the Division Bench did not state anything on the merits of the order passed by the learned single Judge. In our opinion, the Division Bench had made innocuous observations which cannot be said to be unjust or improper.

11. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and have also considered the judgments cited by them.

12. So far as the direct