1. Special leave petition challenging a High Court interim order refusing to stay a trial court judgment while issuing notice in a first appeal. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 973
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sandeep Mehta, Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.
Aditi bhati & ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Kamal singh bhati & ors. - Respondents
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 16920/2025
Decided On : 20-06-2025
Important Points
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's interim order, emphasizing that the appeal process must be respected and that stay applications may be renewed at the appropriate level.
Subject
Civil Law - Appeal
Headnote
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Interim Order - The petition challenges the refusal to stay a trial court judgment while an appeal is pending - High Court issued a notice on the appeal but declined to stay the trial court's judgment - The Supreme Court finds no merit to interfere with the High Court's order, suggesting parties can renew the stay application before the High Court. (Paras 1-4)
(B) Special Leave Petition - Merits - The petition was considered without merit, leading to dismissal. (Paras 4-5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought to challenge an interim order from the High Court that denied a stay on the trial court's judgment related to their initiated appeal.
Findings of Court:
No justification found to interfere with the High Court's interim order, as the main application for stay remained in consideration.
Issues: The key issue revolves around the propriety of the High Court's decision to not grant a stay on the trial court judgment amidst pending appeal considerations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that the petitioners can renew their request for a stay in the High Court, reinforcing that the Supreme Court does not find sufficient merit for intervention at this stage.
Result: Special leave petition dismissed.
(B) Special Leave Petition - Merits - The petition was considered without merit, leading to dismissal. (Paras 4-5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought to challenge an interim order from the High Court that denied a stay on the trial court's judgment related to their initiated appeal.
Findings of Court:
No justification found to interfere with the High Court's interim order, as the main application for stay remained in consideration.
Issues: The key issue revolves around the propriety of the High Court's decision to not grant a stay on the trial court judgment amidst pending appeal considerations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that the petitioners can renew their request for a stay in the High Court, reinforcing that the Supreme Court does not find sufficient merit for intervention at this stage.
Result: Special leave petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ratish Kumar Sharma, AOR, Mr. Ankit Kumar, Adv.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ratish Kumar Sharma, AOR, Mr. Ankit Kumar, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners challenged the High Court's refusal to grant a stay on the trial court's judgment pending the first appeal. (Para 1 )
3. The court observed that the main application for stay remains pending before the High Court, providing an available remedy for the petitioners. (Para 2 )
4. Interference in an interim order refusing stay is unwarranted when the primary application for the requested relief is still pending before the lower court. (Para 2 , 3 )
5. Special leave petition dismissed as devoid of merit. (Para 4 )
6. Whether a higher court should interfere with an interim order refusing stay if the main stay application is pending in the lower court?
No, interference is not warranted if the main application for stay is still pending consideration before the High Court, as the prayer for stay can be pursued in that forum. (Para 2 , 3 )
ORDER :
1. The instant special leave petition is directed against the interim order dated 2nd June, 2025 passed by the High Court whereby, while issuing notice on the first appeal preferred by the petitioners, the High Court refused to grant stay on the judgment of the trial Court.
2. We feel that the main application for stay preferred by the petitioners is still pending consideration and thus, the prayer for stay on the judgment of the trial Court can always be made before the High Court.
3. Thus, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 2nd June, 2025 passed by the High Court.
4. The special leave petition is dismissed as being devoid of merit.
5. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
