Failure to satisfy a conditional deposit extinguishes interim protection and permits execution.

The Respondent-landlord instituted a suit for possession, arrears of rent and damages/mesne profits against Suresh Kumar, alleging default in rent since April 2018.

The Defendant did not appear, and the Trial Court proceeded ex parte and decreed the suit on 21 February 2023.

After the Defendant’s death on 28 September 2023, his legal representative filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, which was dismissed on 22 May 2025 on the ground that the Defendant had knowledge of the suit and had deliberately avoided service.

In the appeal against the ex parte decree, the High Court granted interim protection against dispossession subject to the Appellant depositing damages/mesne profits at ₹1,000 per day from 1 January 2019 until 11 June 2025, with 6% interest, together with ₹92,000 towards rent arrears and interest, within four weeks.

The Appellant did not comply with the condition, and the Court subsequently granted the Respondent liberty to revive the execution proceedings.

The Appellant then sought modification and reduction of the deposit condition under Section 151 CPC, citing non-service of summons, alleged payment of ₹45,15,000 towards sale consideration, and financial hardship.

Whether the Appellant had established sufficient grounds under Section 151 CPC for modification or reduction of the deposit condition attached to the interim protection?

Whether the Appellant could continue to claim interim protection despite failing to comply with the deposit condition within the prescribed period?

Whether the Appellant’s pleas regarding non-service of summons, alleged payment of sale consideration, and financial hardship justified modification of the deposit condition at the belated stage?

The Court applied Section 151 CPC, which preserves the High Court’s inherent powers to make orders necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process; however, such power does not automatically entitle a party to modification of a conditional interim order, particularly after prolonged and unexplained non-compliance.

The Court also applied the principle that interim protection granted subject to a specified condition operates only upon timely compliance with that condition; failure to comply causes the conditional protection to cease.

Issues concerning validity of service, the merits of the decree, and alleged payment of sale consideration must be adjudicated in the appeal or appropriate proceedings and cannot, without more, justify belated modification of the condition.

The Court found that the Appellant admittedly deposited nothing despite the four-week deadline expiring on 9 July 2025 and did not seek extension or modification within the prescribed period or within a reasonable time thereafter.

The application was filed nearly ten months after the deadline and only after the Court recorded non-compliance and permitted revival of execution, making it an afterthought.

Since the interim protection was expressly conditional upon payment of arrears and damages, the Appellant could not retain possession while repudiating the condition on which protection had been granted.

The alleged defects in service and the asserted payment of ₹45,15,000 raised substantive issues requiring consideration on the merits and did not constitute sufficient grounds for modifying the deposit condition.

Financial hardship was also rejected because the Appellant had neither substantiated it adequately nor sought relief promptly, while continuing to enjoy possession without payment.

The balance of equities therefore favoured the Respondent, who held a decree for possession, rather than the Appellant, who remained in possession without complying with the Court’s order.

It held that the Appellant’s failure to comply caused the interim protection to cease operating.

The Respondent was accordingly held entitled to proceed with the execution petition and seek eviction of the Appellant from the suit property forthwith, in accordance with law.

There was no order as to costs.