INTERIM ORDERS.

The word interim means for the time being, temporary, provisional, .intervening, etc. Thus, interim or interlocutory
orders are those orders passed by a court during the pendency of a suit or proceeding which do determine finally the substantive
rights and liabilities of the parties in respect of the subject-matter of the suit/proceeding; they only settle some intervening matter
relating to the cause.

Such orders are made to assist the parties to the suit in the prosecution of their case or for the purpose of protection of the subject-
matter of the suit .Thus, they protect rights of the parties. They enable the court to grant such relief or to pass such order as may be
necessary, just or equitable.They also prevent any abuse of process during the pendency of proceedings.
Hence, interim or interlocutory orders play crucial role in the conduct of litigation between parties.

Such interim orders are: Payment in Court (O. 24); Security for Costs (0 25); Commissions (O. 26); Arrest before Judgment(O.
38); Attachment before Judgment (0.38); Temporary Injunctions; Interlocutory Orders , Appointment of Receiver(O. 40).

(a) Commissions (Secs. 75-78, Order 26)
Sometimes, a witness may be unable to attend the court because of sickness or infirmity or detriment to the public interest or
because he resides beyond the local limits of the courts jurisdiction. In such cases, the court issues a commission.

Secs. 75-78 deal with the powers of the court to issue commissions and the detailed provisions have been made in Order 26. section 75 enacts a
court may issue a commission:
- To examine any person (witness).
- To make local investigation.
- To examine accounts.
- To make partitions.
- To hold scientific investigation.
- To conduct sale of a property.
- To perform any ministerial act.
(II may be noted that for issuance of a commission. Sec. 75 is not exhaustive but illustrative).

Commission to Examine Witnesses
The court has discretion to relax the rule of attendance of a witness in court under certain circumstances. O. 26, R.l lays down that
the court may a commission for the examination on interrogatories or otherwise of any person - when such person resides within
the local limits of court's jurisdiction, and is exempted under the Code from attending the court, or is from sickness or infirmity
unable to attend the court.

R.4 provides that commissions can also be issued for:
- Any person resident beyond the local limits of courts jurisdiction
-A person about to leave the courts jurisdiction.
- A government servant, if the court is of the opinion that he cannot attend without detriment to the public service.

R.4 A (inserted by 1999 Amendment), however, lays down that notwithstanding what is stated above, any court may issue a
commission in respect of any person resident within the local limits of its jurisdiction, if it is in the interest of justice to do so, or if
it is necessary for the expeditious disposal of the case, or for any other reason.

However, where a party accused of fraud seeks to examine himself on commission, the court may refuse the prayer since the
opportunity of noting his demeanour may be lost. The power, however, should not be exercised on the ground that witness is a
man of rank or having social status. The power may be exercised if a party or witness apprehends danger to his life if he appears
before the court (Vinayak Trading Co. v Sham Sunder & Co. AIR 1987 A P. 236). Similarly, a witness (a sadhu), who always
remained in naked condition, can be examined on commission.
A commission for examination on interrogatories shall not be issued without recording of reasons by the court. R.2 lays down that
the court may issue a commission either suo motuor on the application of any party/ witness. Sec. 76 lays down that a commission
may be issued to any court (not being a High Court), situated in any other State, and having jurisdiction in the place where the
person to be examined resides. The court receiving such a commission duly executes it, by examining such a person and returns it
to the issuing court along with the evidence taken.

The evidence taken on a commission shall form part of the record. It shall, however, not be read in evidence in the suit without the
consent of the party against whom it is offered, unless (a) the person, who gave the evidence, is beyond the courts jurisdiction, or
dead or unable from sickness or infirmity to attend the court, or exempted from personal appearance in court, or is a government
servant, or (b) the court in its discretion dispenses with the proof of any of such circumstances (i.e. notwithstanding proof that the
cause for taking such evidence by commission ceased at the time of reading the same) (R.8).


Commission for Local Investigations (Rr. 9-10)
The court may, in any suit, issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit for directing him to make local investigation and to
report for the purpose of (a) elucidating any matter in dispute, or (b) ascertaining the market value of any property or the amount
of mense profits or damages or annual net profits. Such a person is called the Commissioner. The commission can be issued ex parte
or in the presence of both the parties.


Other Commissions:
To examine accounts (Rr 11-12): The court may issue a commission for the purpose of examination or adjustment of accounts. The
report of the commissioner shall be evidence in the suit.
To make partitions (Rr.13-14): Where a preliminary decree for partition of immovable property has been passed, the court may issue a
commission to make an actual partition or separation. The commissioner will prepare a report appointing the share of each party
and distinguishing the same by roetes and bounds and transmit it to the court. The court shall, after hearing the objections of
parties, make the final allotment in the form of a decree. if the court sets aside the report, it may issue a new commission or pass
other orders.
for scientific investigation (R.10A): The court may issue a commission for the purpose of a scientific investigation which cannot, in
the court's opinion, be conveniently conducted before the court.
For sale of movable property (R.10C): Where, in any suit, it becomes necessary to sell any movable property which is in the courts
custody and which cannot be conveniently preserved, the court may issue a commission.
For performance of ministerial act (R.l OB): Where any question arising in a suit involves the performance of any ministerial act which
cannot, in the courts opinion, be conveniently performed before the court, it may issue a commission. Ministerial work means
not the office work of the court but the work like accounting, calculation, etc.

Powers and Limitations of Commissions
It may be noted that the Commissioner, appointed by the court does not perform any judicial function. The Commissioner is
deemed to be a Civil Court; however, he is not a judge, and is, therefore, incompetent to impose any penalty. Likewise, no
commission can be issued to value the property in dispute as it is the function of the court. But commission can be appointed to
gather data to help such determination by court.

However, the Commissioner may summon and procure the attendance of parties/witnesses and examine them, call for and
examine documents, enter upon a land, etc. or proceed ex parte if the parties do not appear before him in spite of the courts order
(Rr.16-18).

The Commissioner must take down the question, the answer, the objections (except objection on the ground of privilege, which
must be decided by the court) and the name of the party. The answer taken by the Commissioner cannot be read in evidence
without courts order. The Commissioner cannot decide the dispute between the parties.

The report of the Commissioner would furnish prima facie evidence of the facts and data collected by the Commissioner. It will
constitute an important piece of evidence and cannot be rejected except on sufficient grounds. It would, however, be open to the
court to consider what weight to be attached to the data collected by the Commissioner (Tushar Kanti v Savitri Devi AIR 1996 SC
2752).

The report of a commission is not conclusive; if a party has objection, it can move to the court. If the report is incomplete, the
court can issue another commission. An order refusing appointment of a commission is appealable. The provisions of O. 26 are
also to apply to proceedings in execution of a decree or order.

The expenses of a commission are to be paid by the party at whose instance the commission is issued.

Commissions Issued by Foreign Courts and Tribunals
Sec. 78 lays down that the provisions governing the execution and return of commissions for the examination of witnesses also
apply to commissions by or at the instance of courts situated in India to which the Code do not extend, or courts under the
authority of Central Government outside India, or a foreign court.

Rules 19 to 22 (O. 26) provide that if a High Court is satisfied that a foreign court wishes to obtain evidence of a witness residing
within its (High Court's) appellate jurisdiction in a proceeding of a civil nature, it may issue a commission for the examination of
such witness.

Letter of request: Lastly, Sec. 77 lays down that, in lieu of issuing a commission, the court may issue a letter of request to examine a
witness who is not residing in any place in India.

(b)Arrest and Attachment Before Judgment (Order 38)
Arrest before Judgment
Order 38, Rr.1-4 lay down provisions for the arrest of defendant before the judgment, under special circumstances.
Where at any stage of the suit, the court is satisfied, either by affidavit orotherwise, that the defendant with intent to delay the
plaintiff, or to avoid process of the court, or to obstruct/delay the execution of any decree that may be passed against him, has
absconded or left (or about to abscond or leave) the local limits of the courts jurisdiction, or has disposed of or removed from
such local limits his property, or, is about to leave India, the court may issue a warrant to arrest the defendant and bring him
before the court to show cause why he should not furnish security for his appearance (R. 1) However, he shall not be arrested if he
pays the sum specified in the as sufficient to satisfy the plaintiffs claim. Further, no arrest can be effectef to ensure execution of
decree.

The four types of suits where such an order cannot be passed are: (i) suits for the recovery of immovable property, (ii) suits for
partition of immovable property, (iii) suits for foreclosure, sale or redemption in case of a mortgage/charge upon immovable
property, and (iv) suits for the determination of any right/interest in immovable property.

The plaintiff may make an application for arrest at any time after the plaint is presented, even before the service of summons.
However, the plaintiffs suit must be bona fide and his cause of action must be prima facie unimpeachable. Further, the court must
have reason to believe that unless this extraordinary power is exercised there is a real danger of the defendant escaping. The power
to arrest the defendant before a decree in favour of the plaintiff is a drastic action and must be taken after due care, caution and
circumspection [Vareed Jacob v Sosamma Greevarghese (2004) 6 SCC 378],

When the defendant fails to furnish security, the court may commit him to civil prison until the decision of the suit/execution of
the decree. However, no such person can be detained in prison for more than six weeks if the amount/value of the subject matter
of the suit does not exceed Rs. 50, and for more than 6 months in any other case. When such person complies with the order, he
cannot be detained in prison any longer (R.4).
Sec. 95 lays down that where in any suit in which the plaintiff has obtained an order of arrest/attachment of property of the
defendant on insufficient grounds, the court may order the plaintiff to pay compensation (up to Rs. 50,000) to the defendant.

Attachment before Judgment
R.5 (O. 38) lays down that an attachment before judgment could be made if the court is satisfied that the defendant is about to
dispose of the whole (or part) of his property, or is about to remove the property from the local limits of the courts jurisdiction.

The sole object behind the order levying attachment before judgment is to give an assurance to the plaintiff that his decree if made
would be satisfied. It is a sort of a guarantee against the decree becoming infructuous for want of property available from which
the plaintiff can satisfy the decree (Sardar Govindrao v Devi Sahai AIR 1982 SC 989).

Where the defendant fails to show cause why he should not furnish security, or fails to furnish the security required, within the
time fixed by the court, the court may order that the property (specified) sufficient to satisfy any decree in the suit which may be
passed, be attached (R.6). The court in the order may also direct conditional attachment. If an attachment order is made without
complying with the provisions of R.5, such attachment shall be void.
The power to attach property before judgment has far-flung consequences, and should not, therefore, be exercised lightly. The
mere fact that the defendant had left his usual place of residence, or that he was planning to sell off his property would not be
sufficient ground to order attachment, unless it is further established that this was done to defeat or delay execution of the decree
(Premraj A tundra v Mohd. Maneck Gazi AIR 1951 Cal 156). It is the duty of the court to take care to see that it is not used as an
instrument to coerce the opposite party to settle the matter with the party armed with an order of attachment before judgment on
the latters terms (Bharat Tobacco Co. v Maula Saheb AIR 1980 Guj 202).
A man is not debarred from dealing with his property just because a suit has been filed against him. Otherwise in every case in
which a suit is brought against a man if during the pendency of the proceedings he sells some of his properties that would be at
once a sufficient ground to satisfy the court that he is disposing his property with intent to defraud the plaintiff. Clearly, there must
be additional circumstances before the court can be satisfied that such an intention exists (Nowroji Pudumjee v Deccan Bank Ltd. AIR
1921 Bom 69).

The fact that the defendant is in insolvent circumstances or in acute financial embarrassment is a relevant circumstance, but not by
itself sufficient. Where, however, the defendant starts disposing of his properties one by one, immediately upon getting notice of
the plaintiff's claim, and was in an embarrassed financial condition, these were grounds from which an inference could
legitimately be drawn that the defendants intention was to delay and defeat the plaintiffs claim (Premraj Mundra v Mohd. Maneck
Gazi).

R.8 provides that any claim preferred to the property attached before judgment shall be adjudicated upon. Further, such attachment
does not affect the rights of persons, existing prior to attachment, if they are not parties to the suit (R.10). An order of attachment
will be withdrawn if the defendant furnishes security or the suit is dismissed (R.9).

Where the property is under attachment, and a decree is subsequently passed in the plaintiffs favour, it is not necessary to apply
for fresh attachment (reattachment) of the property in execution under O. 21 (R.l 1). an attachment before judgment cannot be
ordered in the following two cases- (i) in respect of any agricultural produce or its production in the Possession of an agriculturist,
(ii) no such order in respect of immovable property can be made by a Small Causes Court.
A suit for damages is maintainable for wrongful attachment of property. Sec. 95 lays down that where in any suit in which the
plaintiff has obtained an order of attachment of property of the defendant on insufficient grounds, the court may order the plaintiff
to pay compensation (up to Rs. 50,000) to the defendant.

(c)Appointment of Receiver (Order 40)
A Receiver is a person who receives money of another and renders account. Order XL (i.e. 40) lays down the rules governing the
appointment of a receiver, his duties, etc. The purpose of appointment of receiver is to preserve the suit property and safeguard
interests of both the parties to the suit (P. Lakshmi Reddy v L. Lakshmi Reddy AIR 1957 SC 314).

A receiver is an impartial person between the parties to a cause, appointed by the court (see Sec. 94) to receive and preserve the
property (immovable or movable) or fund in litigation pendente lite, when it does not seem reasonable to the court that either party
should hold it. It is a protective relief. It is one of the harshest remedies as it deprives the opposite party the possession of property
before a final judgment is pronounced. Thus, it should not be lightly resorted to (Krishna Kumar v Grindlays Bank AIR 1991 SC
899).

A receiver should not be appointed unless the plaintiff prima facie proves that he has very excellent chance of succeeding in the
suit. Where it appears to the court to be just and convenient, it may appoint a receiver (before or after the decree) of any property
[R.1 (a)], and remove any person from the possession/custody of the property. A leceiver is an officer/representative of the court
and he functions under its directions. In exceptional circumstances cr for special reasons, a party to a suit/proceeding (plaintiff or
defendant) can also be appointed as receiver (Kasturi Bai v Anguri Chaudhary AIR 2001 SC 1361).

The appointment of a receiver is a discretionary power of the court. The power to appoint under O. 40 is, however, subject to the
controlling provisions of Sec. 94, and is to be exercised for preventing the ends of justice being defeated. The court can appoint a
receiver not only on the application of a party to the suit, but any person who is interested in the preservation of property. The
court can also do so on its own motion.

The court may confer upon the receiver any of the following powers: to institute and defend suits; to realize, manage, protect, etc.
the property; to collect, apply and dispose of the rents/profits; to execute documents; etc. [R.l (d)]. A receiver cannot sue or be
sued for acts done in his official capacity by a third party without the leave of the court. Property in the hands of receiver cannot
be attached without the courts leave. Since he is custodia legis, any obstruction/interference by anyone with his possession without
the courts leave is interference with the courts proceedings and is liable for contempt of court.

A receiver is the right arm of the court in exercising the jurisdiction invoked in cases for administering the property; the court can
only administer through a receiver. For this reason, all suits to collect or obtain possession of the property must be prosecuted by
the receiver, and the proceeds received and controlled by him alone [Jagat Tarini Dasi v Naba Gopal Chaki ILR (1907) 34 Cal 305].

A receiver is entitled to the remuneration fixed by the court for the services rendered by him (R.2). A receiver is entitled to be
indemnified for the debts incurred or contracts entered into by him in the course of the management of the estate. A receiver has to
furnish security as the court thinks fit, duly to account for what he shall receive in respect of the property. He has to pay the amount
due from him as per the courts directions (R.3). If the receiver fails to submit accounts, or fails to pay the amount due, or
occasion loss to the property by his willful default/negligence, the court may direct his property to be attached and sold and make
good any amount found to be due from him (R.4).

The court has an inherent power to remove the receiver appointed by it, when he does not comply with the orders of the court or
abuses his power or authority. A Collector may be appointed as a receiver in cases where the property in question is land paying
revenue to the Government (R.5).

Supplemental Proceedings (Secs. 94-95)
Sec. 94 summarizes the general powers of the court in regard to interlocutory proceedings. It lays down that, in order to prevent the
ends of justice from being defeated, the court may:
(i) issue a warrant to arrest the defendant;
(ii) direct the defendant to furnish security, to produce any property and place it at the courts disposal, or order the
attachment of any property;
(iii) grant a temporary injunction, and in case of disobedience, commit the guilty person to the civil prison, etc.;
(iv) appoint a receiver of any property, and enforce the performance of his duties by attaching and selling his property;
(v) make other interlocutory orders.

Under Sec. 95, the court, if satisfied that an arrest, attachment or injunction was applied for on insufficient grounds, or that there
was no reasonable ground for instituting of suit by the plaintiff, may award against the plaintiff, such amount not exceeding Rs.
50,000, as it deems reasonable compensation to the defendant for the expense/injury (including injury to reputation) caused to
him. The court, however, cannot award any amount exceeding the limits of its pecuniary jurisdiction.
Sec. 95, thus, provides a summary remedy for an injured defendant to enable him to seek compensation by an application to the
court instead of by a suit. An order determining any such application shall bar any suit for compensation in respect of such arrest,
attachment or injunction.

(d)Security for Costs (Order 25)
Order 25 of the C.RC. lays down rules as to security for payment of costs to be furnished by the plaintiff at any stage of the suit.
The object is to provide for the protection of the defendants in certain cases where, in the event of success, they may have
difficulty in raising their costs from the plaintiff.
Security for costs is to be made in all cases where it appears to the court that the plaintiff is residing out of India and does not
possess sufficient immovable property in India (other than the suit property). The court may pass an order under O. 25 either on its
own motion (suo motu) or on the application of the defendant. It must record its reasons for doing so, though the courts power is
discretionary.
The suit can be dismissed in consequence of the security not being furnished within the time fixed by the court. Such a suit,
however, can be restored by the same court if the plaintiff satisfies the court for his inability to furnish security in time.
Mere poverty, or even insolvency, of the plaintiff is not a sufficient ground for ordering him to give security for costs. There is a
conflict of opinion whether security can be ordered against a pauper plaintiff. Security should not be ordered against a minor
plaintiff or his next friend.