HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Pankaj Bhandari, Anoop Kumar Dhand, JJ.
Suresh Sharma & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Dhanwanti Sharma – Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 548 of 2022 and S.B. Civil Writ Petiton No. 6089 of 2019
Decided On : 07-05-2022
Interim Relief - Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Section 23 - [Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 23 of the Act of 2007 and emphasized the principle that no final relief can be granted by way of passing an interim order. The court referred to various decisions of the Supreme Court to support its conclusion, highlighting the need for rare and exceptional circumstances to grant interim relief tantamount to final relief. The court held that the interim order directing the appellants to vacate the premises amounted to granting final relief and set aside the impugned orders.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants challenged the order dismissing their writ petition against an order directing them to vacate a property in response to an application under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the interim order granting final relief to the respondent by directing the appellants to vacate the property in question was not in line with the legal principle that no final relief can be granted by passing an interim order.
Issues: The main issue was the grant of final relief through an interim order under Section 23 of the Act of 2007.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principle that no final relief can be granted by way of passing an interim order, citing various decisions of the Supreme Court and highlighting the need for rare and exceptional circumstances to grant interim relief tantamount to final relief.
Final Decision: The impugned orders were quashed and set aside, and the parties were directed to appear before the Sub-Divisional Officer for further proceedings. The special appeal filed by the appellants was allowed, and the Sub-Divisional Officer was expected to decide the matter expeditiously within three months.
ORDER
Anoop Kumar Dhand, J. - By way of filing this appeal, the appellants have challenged the order dated 07.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition filed by the appellants against the impugned order dated 08.03.2019 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jaipur has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the respondent submitted an application under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short 'the Act of 2007') with the prayers to direct the appellants not to abuse her and not to alienate the property in dispute and the possession of the property in dispute be handed over to her. Counsel for the appellants further submitted that the aforesaid application was submitted on 06.03.2019 and on that day notices were issued to the appellants for their appearance on 08.03.2019. On 08.03.2019 when the appellants appeared before the competent authority, the competent authority passed an interim order by granting final relief to the respondent directing the appellants to vacate the property in question within a period of one month. At the same time Site Inspection Commissioner was also appointed to visit the house in question and prepare a list of articles lying there with regard to ownership. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 08.03.2019, the appellants knocked the doors of this Court by way of filing a writ petition before the learned Single Judge which was dismissed vide order dated 07.04.2022. Lastly, counsel for the appellants submitted that it is the settled principle of law that no final relief can be granted by passing an interim order.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellants and submitted that the respondent is an old infirm lady. After death of her husband, the property in question was purchased by her and she has not been allowed to reside in this property. Since she was not having any accommodation to reside, hence, she has to reside with her daughter at Ahmedabad. Counsel further submitted that there is no illegality in the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the learned Single Judge has rightly upheld the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer.
4. Heard. Considered the arguments raised by counsel appearing for the parties.
5. From a bare perusal of the provisions of the Act of 2007, it is clear that a senior citizen can file an application under Section 5 of the Act of 2007 for grant of maintenance, but here in the instant case an application has been submitted by the respondent under Section 23 of the Act of 2007 with multiple prayers including the prayer for getting possession of the property in question. It is the well recognized principle of law that no final relief can be granted by way of passing an interim order. Here in the instant case, by passing the impugned order, final relief has been granted to the respondent by directing the appellants to vacate the property in question.
6. In this connection, we may appropriately refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Prem Chand Premi and Anr. reported in (2005) 13 SCC 505. In the said decision it was held by the Supreme Court that the High Court should not have granted the ultimate relief at the interim stage as the issue seems to be a highly debatable one. In State of U.P. and Ors. Vs. Ram Sukhi Devi reported as (2005) 9 SCC 733, the Supreme Court again had an occasion to deal with a similar issue as to whether the Court should grant almost the final relief by way of interim measure. In that connection, in paragraph 8 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court held as follows:
'...Time and again this Court has deprecated the practice of granting interim orders which practically give the principal relief sought in the petition for no better reason than that of a prima facie case having been made out, without being concerned about
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and Ors. vs. Prem Chand Premi and Anr. reported in (2005) 13 SCC 505
Bharatbhushan Sonaji Kshirsagar (Dr.) vs. Abdul Khalik Mohd. Musa 1995 Supp2 SCC 593
CCE vs. Dunlop India Ltd. (1985) 1 SCC 260
Shiv Shankar vs. Board of Directors
State of Rajasthan vs. Swaika Properties (1985) 3 SCC 217
State of U.P. and Ors. vs. Ram Sukhi Devi reported as (2005) 9 SCC 733
No final relief can be granted by passing an interim order, except in rare and exceptional circumstances.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.