Final relief, such as the sale of immovable property, cannot be granted at an interlocutory stage in a suit for declaration of share and specific performance without the final determination of rights or the express consent of the parties.

Judgment (Per : Kamal Khata, J) :-

1) This Appeal seeks setting aside of the Order dated 5th February, 2026 passed by the learned Single Judge (impugned Order) on the ground that, it is patently illegal, ex facie erroneous, arbitrary, perverse and self-contradictory.

2) Mr. Kadam, learned senior counsel for the Appellant submits that, the learned Single Judge in a suit for declaration, that the Plaintiff is the owner of an undivided 39% share, right, title and interest in the suit property and for specific performance of the binding arrangement contained in the Letter dated 13th December, 2016 has directed, the sale of the suit property, even when no such relief was prayed for by either party. He submits that, the Plaintiff had, by an Interim Application, sought an injunction to protect his share in the suit property. Whereas, in response, the Respondents had sought dismissal for the said Interim Application.

Certainly, there was no Application, by either party, seeking a decree for sale of the property at the interim stage.

3) He submitted that, the impugned Order has effectively rendered the entire suit infructuous, without a trial, and has resulted in re-writing the contract between the parties, which is impermissible. He submitted that, the Plaintiff's suit was for protection of his co-ownership rights; and by forcing a sale onto him, the impugned Order has rendered the co-ownership meaningless, forcing him to part with his property against his will, even before the adjudication of his rights. He submitted that, by ordering the sale of the suit property, the Court has, contrary to the judicial dictum, granted final relief at the interim stage and thereby, created an irreversible situation, severely prejudicing the Appellant. He drew our attention to the impugned Order and led us through the various findings that were made in Appellant’s favour - the original Plaintiff. He accordingly submitted that, the Appeal be allowed and the impugned Order be set aside.

4) Per contra Mr. Purohit, learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent strenuously argued in support of the impugned Order. He drew our attention to the pleadings to submit that, although there were no prayers, the Plaintiff had sought the sale of the property. In that view of the matter, he submitted that the interest of the Plaintiff was secured and the impugned Order passed was in the interest of both the parties. He accordingly submitted that, the Appeal deserves to be dismissed.

5) We have heard both the Senior Counsel and perused the impugned Order.

6) The question before us is, whether the subject property could be directed to be sold at the interim stage in a suit for declaration of share and specific performance without final determination of the Plaintiff’s share.

7) The straight answer is an emphatic no. Ex facie, the impugned Order has done what it could not have granted final relief at the interim stage, without crystalizing or determining the Plaintiff’s share and, most importantly, without his consent; the only exception being the consent of parties.

8) A perusal of the Interim Application indicates that, the relief sought was, an injunction from creating third-party rights in the suit property, appointment of a receiver and for disclosure of arrangements by Defendants in respect of the suit property with any prospective buyer. A sale of the suit property was so