Status quo protection continued only until filing of review application or 31 August, whichever occurred earlier.

The appellant, RPL Collection, filed the writ appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 7 August 2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 229 of 2026.

During the hearing, the appellant sought disposal of the appeal without adjudication on the merits, with liberty to file an appropriate review application before the learned Single Judge.

The appellant further requested that status quo as existing on the date of the appellate hearing be maintained pending filing of the review application.

Although formal notice had not been served, counsel appeared for Respondent No. 1 and Respondents Nos. 2–8; however, proper instructions and vakalatnama/power had not yet been filed.

Whether the writ appeal could be disposed of without examining its merits, while granting the appellant liberty to seek review before the learned Single Judge?

Whether status quo should be directed to continue pending filing of the review application, subject to a specified outer time limit?

The Court applied the procedural principle that a party may seek disposal of an appeal without adjudication on merits where it elects to pursue an appropriate remedy, such as review, before the court that passed the impugned order.

The Court also exercised its incidental and discretionary power to preserve the existing position temporarily through a status quo direction, balancing the request for interim protection against the need to impose a definite time limit.

The appellant expressly requested that the appeal not be decided on merits and sought liberty to approach the Single Bench by way of review.

Since the respondents’ counsel were present, although formal notice and proper authorisation had not yet been completed, the Division Bench proceeded to consider the appellant’s request.

Accepting that request, the Court declined to enter into the merits of the challenge and permitted the appellant to pursue the review remedy.

To prevent alteration of the prevailing position during this limited intervening period, the Court continued status quo, but only until the review application was filed or until 31 August 2026, whichever occurred earlier.

The direction to maintain status quo was continued only until the filing of the review application or 31 August 2026, whichever was earlier.

The Court consequently recorded that the appeal stood disposed of.