Differences between Original Petition and

Interlocutory Petition/Application

Posted:June19,2014inGeneralLaw,Legal
Tags:differencebetweenoriginalpetitioninterlocutoryapplication,interlocutoryapplication
India,interlocutoryapplicationoriginalpetition,interlocutorypetition,interlocutorypetition
india,originalpetition,originalpetitionIndia,originalpetitioninterlocutorypetitiondifference

Originalpetitiongenerallyreferstoanypetitionoranyapplicationincourtthatstatestheoriginationofdisputesandseeksspecific
reliefs.Rule3(9)oftheCodeofCivilProceduredefinesOriginalPetitionas:Originalpetitionmeansapetitionwherebyany
proceedingotherthanasuitorappealoraproceedingsinexecutionofadecreeororder,isinstitutedinacourt.TheOriginal
Petitionreferstothepointoforiginationofthedispute.

OntheotherhandInterlocutoryPetitionisdefinedundertheCivilRulesofPractice,Rule2(j)tomeananapplicationtothecourtin
anysuit,appealorproceedingsalreadyinstitutedinsuchcourt,otherthanaproceedingforexecutionofadecreeororder.Itis
interestingtonotethatthewordapplicationisdefinedinRule2(c)thatincludesexecutionapplication,executionpetitionand
interlocutoryapplication,bothwrittenandoral.

InterlocutoryPetitionsareaformofincidentalproceedingsandtheyareinaidtothefinalproceedings.AnInterlocutoryPetitionis
initiatedwithaviewtopreventtheendsofjusticefrombeingdefeatedwhentheOriginalPetitionisunabletoaddresstheimmediate
circumstances.InterlocutoryApplicationsorInterlocutoryPetitionsarefiledtosupportthemainpetitionforaninterlocutoryrelief
duringpendencyofthemainPetition.

However,interlocutoryorderspassedintheincidentalproceedingshaveadirectbearingontheresultoftheoriginalpetitionandsuch
ordersmaybeissuedinadivorceproceedingwheretheinterlocutoryapplicationisformaintenance,pendingadecisiononalimony
andchildsupport.Further,courtsmayalsoissueinterlocutoryorderswherepropertyisabouttobesoldorforfeitedandgrant
interlocutoryinjunction,preventingthetransferofpropertyuntilithasmadeafinaldecision.

IfwelookatthedefinitionofPetition:

Petition:Awrittenaddress,embodyinganapplicationorprayerfromthepersonorpersonspreferringit,tothepower,bodyor
persontowhomitispresented,fortheexerciseofhisortheirauthorityintheredressofsomewrong,orthegrantofsomefavour,
privilege,orlicence.AformalwrittenrequestaddressedtosomeGovernmentalauthority.Therightofthepeopletopetitionfor
redressofgrievancesisguaranteedbytheFirstAmendmentU.S.Constitution.

IngeneralApetitionisaformalwrittenrequest,madetosomeofficialorbodyhavingauthoritytograntit.Stateexcrel.Jackson
v.SchoolDist.No.2,34P2d102,104,140Kan171.

Apetitionisaformalwrittenrequestorprayerforacertainthingtobedone,thesignersofwhichattachtheirsignatures
voluntarilyDavisv.Henderson104SW1009,127Ky13.

Petitionmeantanappeal,aprayerorarequesttoact,anddidnotmeanaparticularformdiagramordefinition.TexOKan
FlourMillsv.U.S.D.C.Tex.,49FSupp516,520.

InSm.ShyamaliSarkarvsAshimKumarSarkarAIR1988Cal124,92CWN659itwasheldthat:
thewordpetition,whenusedinjuxtapositiontothewordapplication,wouldmeanpetitionsoforiginalnature,thatispetitions
whichwouldinitiateandfoundproceedingsoforiginalnaturewhichareindependentofandnotconsequentialtoanyother
proceedings.

However,theworldapplicationissynonymouswiththetermpetitionwhichmeansawrittenstatementofmaterialfactsrequestingthe
CourttogranttherelieforremedybasedonthosefactsasheldinPhilipv.DirectorofEnforcementAIR1976SC1185,
1187/CriminalProcedureCode(1974),Section482(2)(a).

InA.R.MunuswamyRajoovsHamsaRani(1974)2MLJ237itwasheldthat:

UnderSection26tomakeordersandprovisionswithrespecttothecustody,maintenanceandeducationofchildren.Itistruethatas
perthisRule,proceedingsunderSection26oftheActaretobeinitiatedbymeansofanOriginalPetition.ButthenRule2ofthe
sameRulessaysthateveryotherproceedingssubsequenttothepetitionshallbebyaninterlocutoryapplication.

PetitionforrestitutionofconjugalrightsunderSection9wasinitiatedbyanOriginalPetitioninconformitywithRule1.AsRule2says
thateveryotherproceedingsubsequenttothepetitionshallbeaninterlocutoryapplication,itmaybeconstruedtomeanthatonce
themainproceedinghasbeeninitiatedbyanOriginalPetition,anyotherproceedinglikeanapplicationformaintenancesubsequent
tothepetitioncanbebyaninterlocutoryapplications.

Further,inJoshyvsTheState1986CriLJ263itwasstatedwithregardtointerlocutoryordersthat:

Ordinarilyandgenerallyinterlocutoryorderwillhavetobeunderstoodtomeanasaconversetothetermfinalorder.Butwhatever
isnotfinalordercannotbetakenasinterlocutoryorder.Ifsuchaninterpretationisplaced,therevisionalpowersoftheSessionsCourt
ortheHighCourtwillberenderednugatorybecauseonlysuchordersonfinaldeterminationoftheactionwhicharenotappealable

willbecomerevisable.EvidentlythatisnottheintentionofthelegislaturewhenitretainedtherevisionalpowersoftheHighCourt
underthenewCode.Theretentionoftherevisionalpowerandthebarintheexerciseofsuchpowerinrelationtointerlocutoryorders
willhavetobeharmoniouslyinterpreted.Orderssummoningwitnesses,adjourningcases,grantingorrefusingbail,callingforreports
andsuchotherstepswhichhavenothingtodowithdeterminationoftherightsofpartiesandwhichareonlystepsinaidofthe
pendingproceedingswillnodoubtbeonlyinterlocutoryordersfromwhichrevisionpetitionsarebarredunderSection397(2)of
Cr.P.C.

Lastly,inT.V.SatyanarayanavsSubbaArunaMeenakshiILR1988KAR1074,itwassaidthatthetermInterlocutory
ApplicationgivenintheKarnatakaCivilRulesofPractice,1967,readsas:

17.InterlocutoryApplicationmeansanapplicationtotheCourtinanysuit,appealorproceedingalreadyinstitutedinsuchCourt
otherthananapplicationforexecutionofthedecreeorsettingasidethedecreeorfinalordermadeinsuchsuit,appealor
proceeding.AnapplicationunderSection24oftheHinduMarriageActsquarelyfallswithinthemeaningofthewordsInterlocutory
Application,asitcouldbemadeonlyinamainproceedingunderoneortheotherprovisionsoftheHinduMarriageAct.Anyorder
passedonsuchanapplicationwouldcertainlybeaninterlocutoryorder,Therefore,hesubmittedthatnotwithstandingthefactthatan
interlocutoryordermadeinanapplicationpresentedunderSection24oftheHinduMarriageActamountedtoajudgment,thefact
remainsthatitwasaninterlocutoryorder.Therefore,hesubmittedthatasSection19(1)expresslyprovidesthatanappealliesonly
againstanyjudgmentororder,notbeinganinterlocutoryorder,noappealliesagainstanordermadeforgrantofinterim
maintenanceunderSection24oftheHinduMarriageActandnotwithstandingthefactthatitwasaJudgment.

Thus,fromtheabovediscussion,itisevidentthattherearelotofdifferencesbetweenoriginalpetitionandinterlocutory
petition/application.TheintentionofthelegislatureaswellasthejudiciaryhasbeentoallowInterlocutoryapplicationsthatseekto
meettheendsofjusticeandprovidereliefincircumstanceswheretheOriginalPetitionisnotsufficienttoaddresstheimmediate
circumstances.However,thereareseveralrestrictionsimposedoninterlocutoryapplicationsandinterlocutoryorderstoprevent
unnecessarydelaysincourtproceedings.