When the maintainability of a suit is contested, the court should, as a preliminary step, determine jurisdiction before considering the grant of interim relief : Supreme Court
In situations where the maintainability of a civil suit is contested, and opposition to interim relief is based on this ground, the court has mandated that the trial court must establish a prima facie satisfaction regarding the maintainability of the suit before deciding on interim relief.
The bench, consisting of Justices BR Gavai, Dipankar Datta, and Aravind Kumar, underscored the impropriety of a court refraining from recording its initial satisfaction on the question of maintainability while simultaneously granting temporary protection. Such an approach would be deemed an improper exercise of judicial power.
The court clarified that if, during the application for interim relief, the court deems the suit barred by law or otherwise not maintainable, it cannot dismiss the suit outright. Instead, it should refrain from granting interim relief without framing a preliminary issue. However, the court is allowed to express its opinion on the matter as a basis for refusing interim relief after the filing of the written statement.
The judgment further addressed exceptional situations where an immediate decision on the maintainability of the suit might result in a delay in granting interim relief, causing irreparable harm. In such cases, the court may issue an appropriate order after assigning proper reasons. This is to prevent irreparable harm, injury, or undue hardship to the party seeking relief and to ensure that the proceedings are not rendered fruitless due to the court's non-interference.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case "ASMA LATEEF & ANR. V. SHABBIR AHMAD & ORS.," clarified that such orders, if required, are only justified in exceptional circumstances to avoid irreparable harm or to prevent the proceedings from becoming futile due to the court's non-intervention.