Interlocutory relief, pleadings amendment and unsupported deposit orders: appellate limits and trial-stage amendment principles clarified.

Interference with refusal of interim relief is limited to cases where the trial court's discretion is arbitrary, capricious, perverse, or contrary to settled principles, and on the facts the appellate court upheld the refusal because the settlement had been substantially implemented and no strong prima facie case for restraint was shown. A direction to deposit money could not stand where no such relief was pleaded, so that portion was set aside. The amendment of the plaint was sustained because it was sought at an early stage, before trial commenced, and the proposed changes were matters for trial without altering the suit's essential character or causing legally significant prejudice.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the refusal to grant interim relief in the suit called for interference in intra-court appeal; (ii) Whether the direction to deposit Rs. 4 crore could be sustained and whether amendment of the plaint was rightly permitted.

Issue (i): Whether the refusal to grant interim relief in the suit called for interference in intra-court appeal.

Analysis: Interference with an interlocutory order lies only where the discretion of the trial court is shown to be arbitrary, capricious, perverse, or contrary to settled principles governing interlocutory relief. The material before the trial court showed a substantial implementation of the family settlement, with remaining disputes requiring adjudication on affidavit evidence and at trial. The alleged non-compliance of the settlement and the plea of fraud did not, on the facts, make out a strong prima facie case warranting interim restraint.

Conclusion: The refusal of interim relief was upheld and the appeal against that part of the order was dismissed.

Issue (ii): Whether the direction to deposit Rs. 4 crore could be sustained and whether amendment of the plaint was rightly permitted.

Analysis: A direction to deposit money could not be sustained when no such relief had been sought in the pleadings and the court had no basis to grant such relief suo motu in the circumstances. The portion of the order directing deposit was unwarranted and was rightly interfered with. As to amendment, the proposed changes were sought at an early stage, before commencement of trial, and the trial court correctly applied the law on amendment of pleadings in allowing the plaint to be amended. The defence objections to the new assets and alleged concealment were matters for trial and did not justify refusal of amendment.

Conclusion: The deposit direction was set aside, and the order allowing amendment of the plaint was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeals concerning interim relief and amendment failed, while the challenge to the deposit direction succeeded, leaving the parties with only partial success.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate court will not interfere with a discretionary interlocutory order unless the discretion is shown to be plainly unreasonable, and a monetary direction cannot be imposed suo motu in the absence of a pleaded and legally sustainable foundation; amendment of pleadings should be allowed at an early stage if it does not prejudice the opposite party or alter the suit's essential character.

---