Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARAVIND KUMAR, PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.
Giriraj & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Mohd. Amir & Ors. – Respondents
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 55304/2025
Decided On : 16-01-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. delay condoned; case heard. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. interim order application pending since january 2025. (Para 3) |
| 3. high court to dispose of application on merits. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. special leave petition disposed; pending applications also addressed. (Para 6 , 7) |
ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties.
3. Against an interim order of status quo, the present Special Leave Petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that an application for vacating the interim order has already been filed and it is pending since last January, 2025 till date. At this stage it would be apt and appropriate to note Sub- Article (3) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India which mandates that upon such an application being filed, the High Court would be required to dispose of the same within a period of two weeks.
4. In the teeth of the said provision and also in the light of the submissions made by the learned advocates appearing for the parties that matter has been listed on 19.01.2026, we request the High court to take up the said application and dispose of the same on its own merits.
5. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival submissions.
6. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition is disposed of.
7. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of and file be consigned to the record.
The Supreme Court emphasized the need for the High Court to expedite the disposal of pending applications under Article 226(3) of the Constitution, reinforcing the principle of timeliness in legal pr....
The court's discretion in entertaining petitions and the importance of expeditious appeal decisions by the High Court
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's ruling, affirming no substantial grounds for intervention under Article 136.
Interlocutory orders are generally not interfered with by higher courts.
The main legal point established is that the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India does not warrant interference with the High Court's order.
The court's decision emphasized the flexibility provided by the Limitation Act, Section 5, in extending or condoning the period of limitation for filing written statements.
The principle of non-interference with interim orders when the matter is still pending before the lower court.
The court's discretion under Article 136 and the importance of expeditious trial completion
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
