Interim orders subsisting during trial may be continued in appeal to preserve the subject matter of litigation.

The Appellant filed a suit (CS/256/2009) seeking a perpetual injunction and damages regarding car parking spaces.

During the pendency of the suit, an interim arrangement was established via an Appeal Court order dated October 26, 2009, and a subsequent order dated November 24, 2010, which permitted the Respondents to park two cars in specific spots subject to payment.

On March 18, 2026, the Trial Judge dismissed the suit.

The Appellant preferred the present appeal and sought the continuation of the previous interim protection pending the final disposal of the appeal.

The Respondents opposed this, citing the dismissal of the original suit.

1. Whether an interim order that was operational during the trial should be continued during the pendency of an appeal after the suit has been dismissed.

2. Whether the balance of convenience and the risk of irreparable loss justify the continuation of the status quo regarding parking arrangements.

The Court considered the principles of interim relief pending appeal, specifically the requirements of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.

The Court distinguished the precedent Kashi Math Samsthan and Another v. Shrimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swamy and Another (2010) 1 SCC 689, which held that interim orders need not be automatically restored in appeal if a prima facie case is not established.

The Court relied on its discretionary power under the Code of Civil Procedure to maintain the subject matter of the lis to prevent prejudice to the parties during appellate proceedings.

The Court noted that the interim arrangement regarding parking spaces had been in place for over 15 years (since 2009/2010).

While the Respondents cited Kashi Math Samsthan to argue against restoration, the Court found the "factual matrix" of the present case distinct because the parties had been consistently following a Court-mandated arrangement for years.

The Court reasoned that failing to continue the order would affect the subject matter of the lis and cause prejudice.

Consequently, it determined that a prima facie case for interim protection existed and that the balance of convenience favored the Appellant, as it had across the earlier stages of litigation.

The Court directed the Appellant to prepare informal paper books and granted the Respondents liberty to file a cross-objection. Application GA/1/2026 was disposed of accordingly.