Interlocutory order and forum shopping: revisional challenge to production warrant execution failed, with compensatory costs imposed.

An order directing execution of a production warrant was treated as interlocutory because it did not determine substantive rights or liabilities and merely facilitated compliance in the absence of any stay, so revisional interference was unavailable. The Court also found that pursuing successive proceedings in different forums to resist execution, while no stay remained in force, amounted to forum shopping and obstruction of the court's process. On that basis, compensatory costs were considered justified. The broader principle stated is that a purely interlocutory order is not revisable, and repeated proceedings aimed at thwarting execution of a judicial process may attract costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order directing execution of the production warrant was an interlocutory order and therefore not revisable. (ii) Whether the proceedings reflected forum shopping or suppression of material facts so as to justify dismissal with compensatory costs.

Issue (i): Whether the order directing execution of the production warrant was an interlocutory order and therefore not revisable.

Analysis: The challenge was confined to an order permitting execution of the production warrant. The order did not determine the petitioner's substantive rights or liabilities and merely facilitated compliance with the warrant in the absence of any stay order from any court. On that basis, it was treated as interlocutory in nature and outside revisional interference.

Conclusion: The challenge to the order was held not maintainable in revision.

Issue (ii): Whether the proceedings reflected forum shopping or suppression of material facts so as to justify dismissal with compensatory costs.

Analysis: The petitioner had pursued successive proceedings in different forums to resist execution of the production warrant, while the record showed no subsisting stay against the warrant. The Court treated the course adopted as an attempt to obstruct the process of court and as a clear instance of forum shopping. In view of that conduct, compensatory costs were considered warranted.

Conclusion: The petitioner was found to have indulged in forum shopping and was saddled with compensatory costs.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed, the interim relief sought could not survive, and the petitioner was directed to pay compensatory costs for pursuing successive proceedings to thwart execution of the production warrant.

Ratio Decidendi: A purely interlocutory order that does not determine substantive rights is not revisable, and successive proceedings in different forums to obstruct execution of a judicial process may amount to forum shopping warranting compensatory costs.

---