The Supreme Court in the case Asma Lateef And v. Shabbir Ahmad and Ors observed that if the maintainability of a civil suit is questioned and the grant of interim relief is opposed on that ground, then the trial court, before deciding to grant the interim relief, must at least make a prima facie satisfaction with regards to the maintainability of the suit.
The bench comprising of Justice BR Gavai, Dipankar Datta and Justice Aravind Kumar in the case observed and has stated that where interim relief is claimed in a suit filed before a civil court and the party to be affected by grant of such relief, or any other party to the suit, wherein it raises a point of maintainability thereof or that it is barred by law and also contends on that basis that interim relief should not to be granted, grant of relief in whatever form, if at all, ought to be preceded by formation and recording of at least a prima facie satisfaction that the suit is maintainable or that it is not barred by law.
The court stated that it would be inappropriate for a court to abstain from recording its prima facie satisfaction on the question of maintainability, yet, this court proceed to grant protection pro tem on the assumption that the question of maintainability has to be decided as a preliminary issue under Rule 2 of Order XIV of the Civil Procedure Code, CPC and the same could amount to an improper exercise of power.
Therefore, the court stated that if there is an extraordinary situation where a decision on the maintainability will delay the grant of interim relief which can cause irreparable harm, the said Court may pass an appropriate order after assigning proper reasons. It has also been explained by the court in its judgement delivered that is an extraordinary situation arises where it could take time to decide the point of maintainability of the suit and non-grant of protection pro tem pending such decision could lead to irreversible consequences, the court may proceed to make an appropriate order in the manner indicated above justifying the course of action it adopts.
Further, the court stated that the order may be passed, if at all required, to avoid irreparable harm or injury or undue hardship to the party claiming the relief and/or to ensure that the proceedings are not rendered infructuous by reason of non-interference by the court.