Summary
An appeal concerning an interlocutory direction in a summary recovery suit became infructuous after the suit itself had been finally decreed before the Supreme Court’s interim stay. No challenge to that decree was brought to the Court’s notice. The appeal was dismissed without adjudicating the asserted insolvency-moratorium defence on merits.
Issues
- Whether an appeal against an interlocutory order survived the unchallenged final decree in the suit.
Held
- Conditional leave to defend required deposit of half the suit claim. After earlier challenges failed with liberty to seek variation by offering security, the defendants did not pursue that liberty. The disputed interlocutory order subsequently concerned the plaintiffs’ request for a decree following non-compliance. (¶¶ 2, 3, 4)
- The suit had already been decreed on 20 April 2023, before the Supreme Court stayed the impugned interlocutory order on 1 December 2023. No further challenge to the final decree was shown. With the suit no longer pending, the present appeal from an interim order served no live purpose and was infructuous. (¶¶ 5, 6)
- Although the defendants invoked Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal on subsequent final disposal of the suit and did not decide that contention on merits. (¶¶ 5, 6)
Result
Civil appeal dismissed as infructuous following final decree of the underlying suit.