Interim Protection In Appeal Is Conditional; Failure To Comply With Deposit Order Renders Relief Inoperative: Delhi High Court

"The interim protection granted vide the Order was expressly conditional upon due compliance with the Deposit Condition within the period prescribed therein. The Appellant neither fulfilled the Deposit Condition within the stipulated period nor obtained any extension of time or modification of the said condition from this Court." Delhi High Court, in a ruling delivered on September 15, 2026, has clarified that interim protection granted by an appellate court, when subject to specific deposit conditions, ceases to subsist upon the applicant's failure to comply within the stipulated timeline.

The bench of Justice Tejas Karia emphasized that a party cannot continue to enjoy the benefit of interim relief while remaining in breach of the conditions upon which such relief was predicated.

The litigation arose from a suit for possession and mesne profits filed by the respondent against the original tenant, who defaulted on rent payments. Following an ex parte decree, the legal representative of the deceased tenant challenged the judgment before the High Court. While the High Court initially granted interim protection against eviction, it was strictly conditional upon the deposit of specified arrears of rent and damages/mesne profits within four weeks.

The primary question before the court was whether it should exercise its inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC to modify an onerous deposit condition after the lapse of nearly ten months from the original deadline. The court was also called upon to determine if the appellant could seek such modification after having already failed to comply with the initial order, which had subsequently led to the revival of execution proceedings.

Court Rejects Plea for Modification

The court observed that the appellant’s request for modification was a clear afterthought, filed only after the roster bench had permitted the respondent to revive the execution petition. The bench noted that if the condition were truly "onerous," the appellant was obligated to challenge it within a reasonable timeframe or seek an extension before the expiration of the deadline.

Conduct and Bona Fides of Litigants

"The Appellant has not disputed that the Defendant was a tenant in the Suit Property and had defaulted in payment of rent since April 2018. The Appellant cannot be permitted to continue enjoying possession of the Suit Property without making any payment whatsoever." By failing to fulfill the conditions for relief, the appellant forfeited the right to continue in possession of the suit property, the court reasoned.

Impact of Non-Compliance Interim Protection Ceased to Operate

The court held that once the four-week period expired without compliance or a request for extension, the interim protection ceased to operate by operation of law. The bench underscored that the appellant’s attempt to argue merits—such as the alleged non-service of summons or claims regarding sale considerations—did not constitute valid grounds to modify a deposit condition that was clearly linked to the preservation of status quo.

Dismissing the application, the court categorically stated that there is no legal impediment for the respondent to proceed with the execution petition. The bench concluded that the balance of equities did not lie in favour of an appellant who remained in possession of the property without fulfilling the monetary conditions imposed by the court, effectively authorizing the respondent to seek eviction forthwith.

Date of Decision: 15 September 2026