SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(AP) 774

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
RAVI NATH TILHARI, MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, JJ.
M/s. S.R.K. Bhailal Bhai J.V. – Appellant     
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent 
COM.C.A.No.6 of 2021 and W.P.No.27807 of 2021
Decided On : 04-07-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : P. Kamlakar
For the Respondent:  GP For Irrigation Comm Area Dev

Compliance with interim orders is essential; failure to comply may result in loss of stay and further execution proceedings.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure - Section 148 - Interim order compliance - Appellants failed to deposit amount as directed by interim orders of the court - Court clarifies previous orders and emphasizes the necessity of depositing 50% of the decretal amount - Interim order stay will be vacated if the order is not complied with within the stipulated time. (Paras 2, 4, 6, 20, 24)

(B) Interim Stay - Enforcement of interim orders - Court stresses the importance of compliance with interim orders to maintain judicial integrity, reiterating that failure to comply may lead to dissolution of any interim relief previously granted. (Paras 3, 8, 19)

Facts of the case:
This appeal arises from challenges to a lower court's decree which involved a monetary claim where the appellants were instructed to deposit a portion of the decretal amount in compliance with the court orders. The appellants submitted various applications for extensions due to delays in compliance, where the court allowed some extensions while emphasizing the obligation to comply with the initial orders.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the appellants must deposit the remaining amount in line with the interim order and noted that any delay or non-compliance may result in the dissolution of previously granted relief.

Issues: The central issue pertains to appellants' failure to comply with the interim deposit orders and the implications of this non-compliance on the interim stay provision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court advised that adherence to interim orders is crucial for the efficacy of judicial processes, stressing that non-compliance leads to dissolution of protections granted to the appellants.

Result: Appellants ordered to comply with the interim order by depositing the specified amount within four months, and execution proceedings stayed.

Table of Content
1. interim order compliance and timelines. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. disputes over interim order compliance. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
3. final directives on deposit and further proceedings. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)

ORDER :

Heard Sri D.Yathindra Dev, learned Special Government Pleader for the appellants in COM.C.A.No.6 of 2021 and Sri C.V.R.Rudra Prasad, learned counsel representing Sri
Ch.Purnachandra Rao, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The interim order dated 15.04.2021, read as under:

“COM.C.A No.6 OF 2021

Admit.

I.A.No.1 of 2021

Heard the learned Advocate General and Sri P.Kamalakar representing Sri Ch.Purnachandrarao, learned counsel for the respondent.

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned Advocate General and the learned counsel for the respondent-decree holder and taking into account the findings recorded by the trial court, there shall be interim stay as prayed for subject to the appellants-petitioners’ depositing half of the decretal amount + costs within a period of twelve (12) weeks from today. On such deposit, the respondent-decree holder is entitled to withdraw the same.

It is also made clear that this arrangement shall be subject to outcome of the Appeal.”

3. Subsequently, application for extension of time was filed, to comply with the interim order dated 15.04.2021 vide I.A.No.2 of 2021, upon which the following order was passed on 24.07.2021:

“I.A.No.2 of 2021

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants and Sri P.Kamalakar, learned counsel representing Sri Ch.Purnachandra Rao, learned counsel for the respondent.

The present application came to be filed seeking extension of time for complying with the order dated 15.4.2021 in I.A.No.1 of 2021.

As seen from the record, the petitioners were directed to deposit half of the decretal amount together with costs within a period of twelve weeks from the said date.

Though the said period has elapsed, no amount has been deposited. The present application is filed seeking some more time for complying with the said order.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the statement made by Sri Dilip Kumar, learned counsel, four (4) more weeks from today is granted for complying with the above order.

It is made clear that if the said order is not complied with within the stipulated period, the interim order stands vacated automatically without further reference to this Court.”

4. Later on, I.A.No.3 of 2021 was also filed, on which the following order was passed on 17.12.2021:

“I.A.No.3 of 2021

Heard Sri Bala Swamy, learned counsel attached to the office of learned Advocate General and Sri P.Kamlakar, learned counsel representing Sri Ch.Purnachandra Rao, learned counsel for the respondent.

It appears from the record that already time was extended for compliance of the interim order but till date no amount is paid.

Having to the facts in issue, the appellants shall deposit 50% of the amount directed to be deposited by way of interim order within a period of two (2) weeks from today.
List on 04.01.2022.”

5. The appellants deposited an amount of Rs.3,40,08,615.00 on 19.02.2022. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the said amount was 25% of the principal amount and it was so deposited as under the order dated 17.12.2021, the appellants were directed to deposit 50% of the amount directed to be deposited by way of interim order dated 15.04.2021. The aforesaid contention raised is contrary to the interim order dated 15.04.2021. The appellants had also not filed any application for modification of the said interim order and consequently, the order dated 17.12.2021 could not be considered as direction to deposit 50% of the amount directed to be deposited by way of interim order dated 15.04.2021 and particularly when the order dated 17.12.2021 was passed in I.A.No.3 of 2021 seeking extension of time to deposit the amount under the interim order dated 15.04.2021.

“The Main Com

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top