Appellate courts will not interfere with interlocutory discretion absent arbitrariness, perversity, or settled-law error.

The appellants challenged the order dated 6 July 2026 directing the eviction of Appellant No. 2 and his son from two rooms, Nos. 201 and 204, in the suit property and authorising the Court Receiver, with police assistance, to take forcible possession if necessary.

The appellants contended that Appellant No. 2 had occupied the premises since June–July 2012 under a leave and licence arrangement and that Appellant No. 1 had subsequently acquired a 50% undivided share in the property.

The respondent had instituted a suit in November 2021 challenging the conveyance and seeking appointment of a Court Receiver. A Receiver was appointed on 4 January 2024.

Earlier orders recorded the appellants’ failure to hand over possession and directed the Receiver to obtain police assistance for forcible possession.

Although the appellants had agreed to surrender the entire property except the two rooms, that position was made conditional upon the outcome of an appeal. The appeal was ultimately unconditionally withdrawn on 6 February 2026.

When the respondent’s eviction application was first listed on 6 July 2026, the appellants sought two weeks to file a reply, stating that Appellant No. 2 had recently been discharged from hospital. The Single Judge nevertheless passed the impugned order, while permitting a reply to be filed within two weeks and granting four weeks to vacate.

Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in directing the appellants to vacate the two rooms and permitting forcible possession by the Court Receiver without first allowing the appellants an opportunity to file a reply?

Whether the appellate court should interfere with the Single Judge’s interlocutory discretionary order under the principles governing appellate interference?

Whether the appeal constituted an abuse of the process of court intended to delay handing over possession?

The Court applied the principle in Wander Ltd. v. Antox India Pvt. Ltd., 1990 Supp SCC 727, that an appellate court should not interfere with the exercise of judicial discretion in an interlocutory matter or substitute its own discretion unless the discretion was exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, perversely, or contrary to settled legal principles governing interlocutory relief.

The Court also relied on the principle stated in Rakesh Kumar Goel v. U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., (2010) 8 SCC 263, that courts are not forums for manipulators or speculators and that litigation cannot be used as a speculative device for obtaining an illegitimate advantage.

The Court further treated the prior orders appointing the Court Receiver and directing forcible possession as operative orders, particularly after the appellants’ related appeal had been unconditionally withdrawn.

The Court held that the request for time to file a reply had to be assessed against the procedural history.

The Receiver had been appointed in January 2024, possession had previously been directed to be taken with police assistance, and the appellants had failed to pursue their earlier appeal, which was eventually withdrawn unconditionally on 6 February 2026.

Consequently, the conditional exception permitting the appellants to retain the two rooms no longer survived, and the appellants had no continuing entitlement to withhold possession.

The Single Judge nevertheless granted two weeks to file a reply and four weeks to vacate, thereby providing procedural time despite directing eviction.

Since the impugned order reflected a considered exercise of discretion based on the complete record and was neither arbitrary, capricious, nor perverse, the appellate restraint required by Wander Ltd. was attracted.

The Court concluded that the appeal was being used to delay delivery of possession and amounted to an abuse of process.

The Court upheld the Single Judge’s order directing the appellants to vacate Rooms Nos. 201 and 204 and permitting the Court Receiver to obtain police assistance and take forcible possession in default.

The appellants were directed to pay costs of ₹1,00,000 to Respondent No. 1 within two weeks from the date of uploading of the judgment.

The Interim Application was disposed of as infructuous, and the matter was directed to be listed for reporting compliance on 3 September 2026.