M/S. HOTEL QUEEN ROAD PVT. LTD. & ORS.versusMR. RAM PARSHOTAM MITTAL & ORS.

                      [2013] 8 S.C.R. 421


      M/S. HOTEL QUEEN ROAD PVT. LTD. & ORS.                          A
                            v.
         MR. RAM PARSHOTAM MITTAL & ORS.
             (Civil Appeal No.5499 of 2013)
                         JULY 16, 2013
                                                                      B
     [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI AND ANIL R. DAVE, J.)

     Practice and Procedure - Extension of interim relief
beyond the date of final disposal of the case - Propriety <Jf -
Held: Though continuation of interim relief beyond the date           C
of disposal is not permissible - But where the matter is hea'i'd
on merits, and withdrawal of the case is permitted on the facts
of the case, Court is at liberty to extend the interim relief for a
limited period after recording reasons for the same.
                                                                      D
    The High Court after hearing the matter on merits
permitted the respondents (appellants in th.e High Court)
to withdraw the matter so as to avail alternative remedy.
The High Court, however, observed that the impugned
order had prima facie finding and that the order of                   E
withdrawal would not prevent the parties from making
legal submissions before the appropriate forum. The
High Court also extended the interim relief granted to the
respondent beyond the date of the withdrawal order.
Hence the present appeal.
                                                                      F
    Appellant contended that while permitting withdrawal
of the appeal, such observations could not have been
made by the High Court; and that upon final disposal of
the case, the High Court become functus officio and
hence could n~t have extended the inerim relief beyond                G
the date of judgment.

     Dismissing the appeals, the Court

                               421                                    H
    422      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013] 8 S.C.R.


A     HELD: 1. The High Court did not ask the authority,
  which was to be approached by the appellants, that the
  observations made by the Single Judge should be
  ignored. The order of the Single Judge was to be
  challenged by the appellants before another forum and
B therefore, the Division Bench did not state anything on
  the merits of the order passed by the Single Judge. Thus,
  the Division Bench had made innocuous observations
  which cannot be said to be unjust or improper. [Para 10)
  [425-E-F]
c      2. If a petition is not maintainable and is ultimately
  withdrawn, the court should not continue interim relief for
  a period beyond withdrawal of the writ petition. However,
  where the matter is heard on merits and after considering
  the facts of the case, the court permits withdrawal of the
D case, the court is at liberty to extend the interim relief or
  can grant interim relief for a limited period after recording
  reasons for the same. In view of the facts of the case, the
  High Court was not in error while extending the interim
  relief for some time while permitting withdrawal of the
E appeal, as the High Court has also recorded the reasons
  for which the interim relief was extended beyond
  withdrawal of the appeal and especially when the matter
  was heard on merits by the High Court and only to
  facilitate the appellants, the High Court had permitted
F withdrawal of appeal. [Para 17, 18 and 19) [428-B-E]
          The State of Orissa vs. Madan Gopal Rungta A.LR. (39)
    1952 S.C.12 - followed.
      Ajay Mohan and Ors. vs. H.N. Rai and Ors. (2008) 2 SCC
G 507: 2007(13) SCR 298; Padam Sen and Anr. vs. The State
  of Uttar Pradesh1961(1) S.C.R. 884 - relied on.

                         Case Law Reference:
          2007 (13) SCR 298      relied on           Para 13
H         1961(1) S.C.R. 884     relied on           Para15
  MIS. HOTEL QUEEN ROAD PVT. LTD. & ORS. v.                  423
      MR. RAM PARSHOTAM MITIAL & ORS.
     A.LR. (39) 1952 S.C.12 followed                   Para16        A

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
5499 of 2013.

    From the Judgment and Order dated 20.04.2010 of the
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in FAO (OS) No. 349 of 2009.        B
                                WITH
SLP (C) No. 22887 of 2013.

     Jayant Bhushan, Mohit Chauhary, Jayant K. Mehta, R.K.
Srivastava, Pragya Singh, Harsh Sharma, Puja Sharma for the          C
Appellants.

    Aman Lekhi, Atul Sharma, Nitesh Jain, A.D.N. Rao, Ajay
Sharma, Abhishek Aggarwal, Respondent-In-Person for the
Respondents.                                                         D

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by:

     ANIL R. DAVE, J. 1. Leave granted.

     2. Though the present litigation has a chequered history,       E
we do not propose to go into the details of the litigation for the
reason that by virtue of the impugned order dated 20th April,
201 O passed in FAO (OS) 349 of 2009 by the High Court of
Delhi, the appellants i.e. the present respondents had been
permitted to withdraw the said appeal.                               F

    3. It appears that the appeal was substantially heard by the
High Court but as the High Court was not persuaded to grant
any relief to the appellants therein, the appeal was withdrawn
so as to avail alternative remedy available to the appellants.
                                                                     G
    4. The appeal was permitted to be withdrawn. In normal
circumstances, the present appellants, who were the
respondents in the said appeal, should not have been
aggrieved by withdrawal of the appeal but they are aggrieved
because of certain observations made by the High Court while         H
        424      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2013] 8 S.C.R.


A       permitting withdrawal of the appeal. The said observations,
        which have been objected to, are reproduced hereinbelow :
              "... All that we wish to observe is what we have said earlier,
              that the impugned order does, in fact, partake of a prima
              facie finding.
8
               Nothing in these Orders shall preclude or prevent either
              of the parties to make legal submissions before
              appropriate Forums.
              On 3.3.2010, we had restrained the Respondent from
c             alienating, selling or creating any third party interest in the
              Rights issue dated 30.07.2009. When we had passed
              these Orders, we were desirous only to maintain status
              quo. We clarify that it was not passed at that stage,
              weighing the respective strength of the cases. In our view,
D             we think it appropriate-and expedient to extend the interim
              orders upto 10.05.2010."

       5. It was mainly submitted that no such observation could
  have been made by the Court while permitting withdrawal of
E the appeal and the interim relief which had been granted earlier
  in the appeal should not have been continued even after
  withdrawal or disposal of the said appeal. It is clear from the
  aforestated order that the interim relief which had been granted
  during the pendency of the appeal had been extended till 10th
F May, 2010.

            6. The parties have been referred to hereinbelow as they
        had been arrayed before the Division Bench of the High Court.

       7. So far as the observations made in the impugned order
G with regard to the findings of the learned single Judge are
  concerned, we are of the view that the said observations cannot
  be said to be incorrect.

        8.Upon perusal of the impugned order, we find that while
H , seeking leave to withdraw the appeal, a request was made by
        \


    \
  M/S. HOTEL QUEEN ROAD PVT. LTD. & ORS. v. 425
 MR. RAM PARSHOTAM MITTAL [ANIL R. DAVE, J.]

the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, which has         A
been recorded by the High Court as under:

    "He seeks leave to withdraw the Appeal with a clarification
    that the observation and decision contained in the
    impugned order should not influence the mind of either of       B
    the aforemeAtioned Judicial Forums."

     9. With regard to the aforestated request made on behalf
of the appellants in relation to withdrawal of appeal, the High
Court observed as under:-                                           c
    "Since the Appeal has .been substantially heard, we are
    not persuaded to make any observation as prayed for by
    the Appellant. We shall only state that what is palpable from
    the legal position that the views and decisions contained       D
    in the impugned order are perforce of a prima facie
    nature."

     10. Thus, upon reading the impugned order, the High Court
did not ask the authority, which was to be approached by the
appellants, that the observations made by the learned single        E
Judge should be ignored. The order of the learned single Judge
was to be challenged by the appellants before another forum
and therefore, the Division Bench did not state anything on the
merits of the order passed by the learned single Judge. In our
opinion, the Division Bench had made innocuous observations         F
which cannot be said to be unjust or improper.

    11. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both
sides and have also considered the judgments cited by them.
                                                                    G
      12. So far as the direction with regard to continuation of
the interim relief upto 10th May, 2010 is concerned, the learned
counsel ai:y>earing for the appellants had submitted that upon
disposal of t~e appeal, the High Court had become functus
officio and therefore, the High Court ought not to have extended
                                                                    H
    426       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013) 8 S.C.R.


A   the interim relief upto 10th May, 2010 especially when the appeal
    had been withdrawn on 20th April, 2010.

        13. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants had
  relied upon certain judgments of this Court to the effect that
B upon final disposal of a case, the court becomes functus officio
  and therefore, the court should not extend interim relief. The
  learned counsel had relied upon the observations made in para
  24 of the judgment delivered in the case of Ajay Mohan and
  Others v. H.N. Rai and Others (2008) 2 SCC 507, which reads
c as under:
          "24. The order of thl;l City Civil Court dated 13-10-2006
          may be bad but then it was required to be set aside by
          the court of appeal. An appeal had been preferred by the
          appellants thereagainst but the same had been withdrawn.
D         The -said order dated 13-10-2006, therefore, attained
          finality. The High Court, while allowing the appellant to
          withdraw the appeal, no doubt, passed an order of status
          quo for a period of two weeks in terms of its order dated
          23-11-2006 but no reason therefor had been assigned. It
E         ex facie had no jurisdiction to pass such an interim order.
          Once the appeal was permitted to be withdrawn, the Court
          became functus officio. It did not hear the parties on merit.
          It had not assigned any reason in support thereof.
          Ordinarily, a court, while allowing a party to withdraw an
F         appeal, could not have granted a further relief. (See G.E.
          Power Controls India v. S. Lakshmipathy.)

       14. On the basis of the aforestated contents of para 24 in
  the case of Ajay Mohan (supra), it had been submitted that
G upon withdrawal of the appeal, the High Court should not have
  extended the interim relief without assigning any reason,
  especially when the High Court had not heard the parties on
  merits.

H         15. On the other hand, it had been submitted by the
  M/S. HOTEL QUEEN ROAD PVT. LTD. & ORS. v. 427
 MR. RAM PARSHOTAM MITTAL [ANIL R. DAVE, J.]
learned counsel appearing for the respondents that in the           A
interest of justice the court has inherent power to continue
interim relief even after disposal of a case. So as to
substantiate the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel
appearing for the respondents had relied upon the judgment
delivered in Padam Sen and Another v. The State of Uttar            B
Pradesh 1961(1) S.C.R. 884.
     16. Similar issue had arisen in the case of The State of
Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta A.LR. (39) 1952 S.C.12. A five-
Judge Bench had observed in the said judgment that:-
    " ... In our opinion, Art. 226 cannot be used for the purpose
                                                                    c
    of giving interim relief as the only and final relief on the
    application as the High Court has purported to do. The
    directions have been given here only to circumvent the
    provisions of'S. 80, Civil P.C., and in our opinion that is
    not within the scope of Art.226. An interim relief can be D
    granted only in aid of and as ancillary to the main relief
    which may be available to the party on final determination
    of his rights in a suit or proceeding. If the Court was of
    opinion that there was no other convenient or adequate
    remedy open to the petitioners, it might have proceeded E
    to investigate the case on its merits and come to a
    decision as to whether the petitioners succeeded in
    establishing that there was an infringement of any of their
    legal rights which entitled them to a writ of mandamus or
    any other directions of a like nature; and pending such F
    determination it might have made a suitable interim order
    for maintaining the status quo ante. But when the Court
    declined to decide on the rights of the parties and
    expressly held that they should be investigated more
    properly in a civil suit, it could not, for the purpose of G
    facilitating the institution of such suit, issue directions in the
    nature of temporary injunctions, under Art.226 of the
    Constitution. In our opinion, the language of Art.226 does ·
    not permit such an action. On that short ground, the
                                                                    H
    428      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 8 S.C.R.


A         judgment of the Orissa High Court under appeal cannot be
          upheld."
        17. In view of the aforestated judgments, it is very clear that
  if a petition is not maintainable and is ultimately withdrawn, the
  court should not continue interim relief for a period beyond
B withdrawal of the writ petition. However, the aforestated
  observation would not apply to a case where the matter is
  heard on merits and after considering the facts of the case the
  court permits withdrawal of the case. In such a case, the court
  is at liberty to extend the interim relief or can grant interim relief
C for a limited period after recording reasons for the same.

       18. In view of the facts of the case, in our opinion, the High
  Court was not in error while extending thC:l interim relief for some
  time while permitting withdrawal of the appeal as the High Court
D has also recorded the reasons for which the interim relief was
  extended till 10.5.2010.

        19. In view of the aforestated legal position, in our opinion,
  the High Court did not commit any error while extending the
E interim relief especially when the matter was heard on merits
  by the court and only to facilitate the appellants therein, the High
  Court had permitted withdrawal of appeal.

         20. In the circumstances, we dismiss the appeal with no
    order as to costs. Interim relief which had been granted earlier
F   by this Court stands vacated.

    S.L.P. (C) No. (CC No.20730) of 2009

        1. In view of the fact that FAO (OS) No.349 of 2009 had
G been permitted to be withdrawn by the subsequent order
  passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi on 20th April,
  2010, the special leave petition does not survive as the
  impugned order has already been withdrawn. The special leave
  petition is dismissed as infructuous.
H K.K.T.                                  Appeal & SLP dismissed.