Interim relief cannot grant final relief where the same substantive prayers remain pending before the court.

Interim directions cannot be used to grant the principal relief sought in the main proceeding. The Gujarat High Court found that the application sought a no-objection certificate and non-agricultural use permission, but those prayers were substantially identical to the substantive relief pending in the petition. Granting such interlocutory relief would have effectively allowed the petition before final adjudication. The Court therefore declined the interim prayers and left the merits to be decided in the pending petition.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant could be granted interim directions to compel issuance of no-objection certificate and non-agricultural use permission when the same relief was substantially sought in the pending petition.

Analysis: The relief sought in the application was found to be substantially identical to the substantive prayers in the pending petition. Granting such directions at the interlocutory stage would effectively amount to allowing the main petition before final adjudication. The settled principle applied was that an interim order should not grant the final relief sought in the substantive proceeding.

Conclusion: The interim prayers could not be granted and the application was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to grant interlocutory relief that would have disposed of the substantive controversy and left the merits to be decided in the pending petition.

Ratio Decidendi: An interim order cannot be used to grant the principal relief claimed in the main proceeding.

---