1. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal

Citation: 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335

Facts:

A corruption FIR was registered against the former CM. Bhajan Lal argued that the allegations were politically motivated and did not disclose any offence.

Principle:

The Supreme Court laid down the famous 7 categories where FIR/Criminal proceedings can be quashed.

Significance:

Most authoritative judgment on quashing FIR; every court relies on it.
Introduced “abuse of process of law” standard.

---

2. R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab

Citation: AIR 1960 SC 866

Facts:

Accused sought quashing of criminal proceedings arguing no legal evidence existed.

Principle:

First classic three grounds for quashing were laid down:

1. Allegations do not constitute any offence.
2. There is a legal bar to proceedings.
3. No evidence to support allegations.

Significance:

Foundation for Bhajan Lal principles.
Still cited for “no offence disclosed” category.

---

3. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque

Citation: (2005) 1 SCC 122

Facts:

Disputes were purely commercial/civil in nature but criminal case was filed.

Principle:

Criminal law cannot be used as a weapon in purely civil disputes.

Significance:

Often used in business, property, partnership disputes where FIR is filed to pressurize.

---

4. Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate

Citation: (1998) 5 SCC 749

Facts:

Company executives were wrongly prosecuted without proper application of mind.

Principle:

Summoning in criminal cases is serious; magistrate must apply mind.

Significance:

Used when FIR/complaint is filed against directors/companies without role or evidence.

---

5. State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy

Citation: (1977) 2 SCC 699

Facts:

Accused argued that continuing criminal proceedings serves no purpose.

Principle:

Court may quash criminal proceedings if the case is manifestly unjust, futile, or oppressive.

Significance:

Establishes High Court’s inherent power to prevent injustice.

---

6. Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat

Citation: (2017) 9 SCC 641

Facts:

Settlement occurred between parties in a non-compoundable offence.

Principle:

Laid down updated principles for quashing on compromise.

Significance:

Very important in matrimonial, commercial, property disputes.

---

7. Gian Singh v. State of Punjab

Citation: (2012) 10 SCC 303

Facts:

Accused sought quashing of non-compoundable offences after compromise.

Principle:

High Courts can quash FIR even in non-compoundable offences if the dispute is private and parties settled.

Significance:

Key case for compromise quashing.
Clarified difference between compounding & quashing.

---

8. Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab

Citation: (2014) 6 SCC 466

Facts:

Parties compromised in a case involving Section 307 IPC.

Principle:

For serious offences, court must verify injury nature, weapon, intention before quashing.

Significance:

Frequently used in attempt-to-murder compromise quashing petitions.

---

9. Priti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand

Citation: (2010) 7 SCC 667

Facts:

Family members were falsely implicated in Section 498A IPC.

Principle:

Courts must be cautious in 498A cases; relatives cannot be roped in casually.

Significance:

Used widely in 498A quashing for distant relatives / false implication.

---

10. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: (2021) 6 SCC 116

Facts:

Issue was whether courts can stay investigation easily.

Principle:

Courts should not pass routine stay orders on FIR investigation.

Significance:

Clarified limits of quashing at investigation stage.
Strong reminder that interference must be rare.

---

11. Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat

Citation: (2011) 7 SCC 59

Facts:

Delay in FIR and no evidence against accused.

Principle:

Weak/absent evidence grounds can be considered during quashing.

Significance:

Helpful where FIR is delayed, vague, or malicious.

---

12. Vesa Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Citation: (2015) 8 SCC 293

Facts:

Commercial dispute converted into cheating FIR.

Principle:

Cheating FIR cannot survive if there was no dishonest intention at inception.

Significance:

Used for cheating (420 IPC) cases arising from business disputes.

What Happens When a Man Dies Without a Will in India?

(Intestate Succession Rules)

The rules depend on the person’s religion, because succession laws differ for Hindus, Muslims, and Christians.

---

1. If the Deceased Is Hindu

(Includes: Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists — governed by Hindu Succession Act, 1956)

A. Class I Legal Heirs (They get first right):

Property is divided equally among:

• Wife
• Children (son & daughter equal share)
• Mother

If any child has died earlier, their children (grandchildren) inherit their parent’s share.

B. If No Class I Heirs → Class II Heirs

These include:

• Father
• Brother & sister
• Grandchildren (from son’s daughter/son’s son)
• Relatives from paternal side

C. If No Class I or II heirs → Property goes to distant relatives

Agnates → Cognates → Government (as last resort)

---

Important Notes (Hindu Law):

• Daughters and sons have equal rights.
• Wife gets one equal share (not entire property).
• Children born from live-in relationships also get rights (as per SC rulings).
• Stepchildren do not inherit unless legally adopted.

---

2. If the Deceased Is Muslim

(Governed by Muslim personal law — not the Hindu Succession Act)

Distribution is fixed by Quranic shares.
Example (most common Sunni rules):

• Wife gets 1/8th share if children exist
• Wife gets 1/4th share if no children
• Sons get double the share of daughters
• Parents also receive fixed shares

Muslim inheritance has no “class system” — shares are predetermined.

---

3. If the Deceased Is Christian or Parsi

Governed by Indian Succession Act, 1925

Christian Male Dies Without a Will

Property distribution:

• Wife gets 1/3rd
• Children get 2/3rd (equally)
• If no wife → children get all
• If no children → wife & parents share equally

---

Additional Practical Points

1. Who gets the bank money?

Legal heirs must apply for:

• Succession Certificate (for bank accounts, investments)
• Legal Heir Certificate (for government/administrative purposes)

2. What about property in joint names?

• If it’s joint tenancy, the surviving co-owner gets it.
• If it’s tenancy in common, deceased’s share goes to legal heirs.

3. What about nominations?

• Nominee is a trustee, not the owner.
• Final ownership goes to legal heirs, not nominee.

1. Temporary Injunction (Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC)

Summary:

A temporary injunction is granted to maintain the status quo during the pendency of the case. It prevents harm, loss, or change in property rights before the final judgment.

When Is It Granted?

• Risk of irreparable injury
• Prima facie case in favor of the applicant
• Balance of convenience

Example:

A tries to sell a disputed property. B files a suit and requests a temporary injunction to stop the sale until the case ends.

---

2. Permanent Injunction (Section 38, Specific Relief Act)

Summary:

A permanent injunction is granted after the final hearing, permanently restraining a party from doing a specific act.

Example:

A repeatedly trespasses B’s land. After the trial, the court passes a permanent injunction restraining A from entering the property forever.

---

3. Mandatory Injunction (Section 39, Specific Relief Act)

Summary:

A mandatory injunction directs someone to do a particular act, usually to correct a wrongful action.

Example:

A illegally builds a wall blocking B’s access road.
The court orders A to remove the wall—this is a mandatory injunction.

---

4. Prohibitory Injunction

Summary:

A prohibitory injunction stops someone from doing an act.

Example:

The court restrains a builder from demolishing or altering a disputed structure.

(Note: This is the most common type and includes both temporary & permanent prohibitions.)

---

5. Ad-Interim Injunction

Summary:

A very short-term injunction granted immediately when the matter is urgent, even before hearing the opposite party.

Example:

If A is about to cut down a valuable tree on B’s land, the court may pass an ad-interim injunction stopping A until the next hearing date.

---

6. Preventive Injunction

Summary:

An injunction that prevents a future or threatened wrongful act.

Example:

Stopping a contractor from starting illegal construction on government land.

(Preventive injunctions include temporary + permanent + prohibitory.)

---

7. Restorative Injunction

Summary:

This injunction restores the position of the parties to what it was before the wrongful act was done.

Example:

A forcibly takes possession of B’s shop.
The court orders A to restore possession to B.

---

8. Interim Mandatory Injunction

Summary:

A mandatory order passed during the case (not at the end) to compel urgent action.

Example:

A water supply authority illegally cuts water connection.
Court orders immediate restoration pending the suit.

---

Quick Table Summary

Type of Injunction	Purpose	Stage	Example
Temporary	Maintain status quo	During case	Stop sale of property
Permanent	Final restraint	After trial	Stop repeated trespass
Mandatory	Compel action	During/after	Remove illegal wall
Prohibitory	Prevent action	Anytime	Stop demolition
Ad-Interim	Urgent temporary stop	Immediate	Stop cutting tree
Preventive	Prevent future harm	Anytime	Stop illegal construction
Restorative	Restore previous position	During/after	Return possession
Interim Mandatory	Urgent mandatory action	During case	Restore water supply

Your question is excellent. Courts found many serious deficiencies in the investigation and evidence, which resulted in Surendra Koli being declared “not guilty” (legally: guilt not proven beyond reasonable doubt).
Below is a clear and complete breakdown in English:

---

Major Lapses in the Evidence That Led to Acquittal

1️. Weakness in Witnesses and Evidence Reliability

• The entire case was largely based on circumstantial evidence — no direct eyewitnesses. (TOI)
• The required forensic support (bloodstains, DNA link, biological trace evidence) was weak.
• Supreme Court said: “The circumstantial evidence was not supported by any proper forensic proof.” (Hindustan Times)

---

2️. Unreliable or Legally Invalid “Confession”

• The confession recorded under Section 164 CrPC was declared not reliable by the court. (Indian Express)
• Koli had been in police custody for over 60 days, raising concerns about voluntariness.
• There was no proper meaningful legal aid provided during custody.
• The crime scene was not secured after the confession.
• Remand papers had contradictions and inconsistencies.
• Confession was not supported by independent evidence or forensic confirmation. (Indian Express)
• The possibility of coercion, tutoring, or torture could not be ruled out. (Indian Express)

---

3️. Serious Issues with Recoveries (Section 27 Evidence Act)

• Bones, skulls, and remains were recovered from drains and open areas, not from exclusively controlled locations. (New Indian Express)
• For Section 27 to apply, the prosecution must prove:
  • Time of disclosure
  • Exact statement made by accused
  • Exact place
  • Exclusive knowledge
    These were not properly recorded or proven.
• Supreme Court said only those recoveries are admissible which come from places accessible only to the accused — which was not the case. (India TV)

---

4️. Forensic & Medical Deficiencies

• Forensics could identify victims but could not connect dismembered remains to Koli. (LiveLaw)
• The prosecution’s claim of “precise dismemberment using technique” did not match an untrained “semi-educated domestic help.” (HT)
• Medical examination of Koli during custody was delayed, inconsistent, and raised the possibility of custodial torture. (Indian Express)

---

5️. Failure to Investigate Other Possible Angles

• A major potential motive — organ trade — was not investigated by the police. (Indian Express)
• Neighbours and local witnesses were not properly questioned. (Hindustan Times)
• Recovery documents and remand papers had contradictions about timings and procedures. (HT)
• Investigation was described as having “tunnel vision,” ignoring alternative offenders or theories.

---

6️. Procedural Violations During Evidence Collection

• Crime scene was not secured, allowing contamination. (HT)
• Narco-analysis and brain mapping were conducted without valid judicial oversight and questionable consent. (Indian Express)
• There were repeated inconsistencies: missing timestamps, unspecified locations, contradictory versions in official paperwork. (Indian Express)

---

7️. Lack of Proper Legal Assistance

• Koli did not receive meaningful legal aid during the crucial stages of interrogation. (Indian Express)
• Lawyers who tried to defend him reportedly faced pressure, and due to poor background, he lacked resources. (pudr.org)

---

8️. Criminal Law Standard Not Met (“Beyond Reasonable Doubt”)

• Supreme Court emphasized that suspicion cannot replace proof. (HT)
• Investigation appeared biased, incomplete, and sloppy.
• Courts said that “some incriminating material may have been planted or mishandled,” raising doubts about integrity of the evidence. (Indian Express)

---

Final Conclusion

Due to all these serious deficiencies:

• The prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Evidence was legally insufficient, unreliable, and riddled with procedural violations.
• Therefore, both Allahabad High Court and Supreme Court ruled that Surendra Koli must be acquitted as per criminal law standards.

---

Supreme Court Judgment – Summary & Analysis (Surendra Koli Curative Petition)

 

Background

The Nithari killings were extremely gruesome — skulls, bones, and human remains of children and young girls were found in a drain near the house.
Multiple sources (India Today, The Indian Express) documented the severity of the case.

Surendra Koli was charged in several cases for murder, sexual assault, and destruction of evidence.
The trial court convicted him, and later, the High Court acquitted him in several cases.
His curative petition before the Supreme Court focused on legal defects in the earlier convictions.

---

Main Reasons – Why the Supreme Court Acquitted Koli

---

A. Questionable Legality of Recoveries (Evidence)

The Supreme Court held that the recoveries (bones, knives, etc.) were made from an open drain, which was a public place — not a spot accessible only to Koli.

Under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, any recovery must be clearly linked to a properly recorded disclosure statement.
The Court found:

• The disclosure statements were not properly recorded
• The link between the statement and the recovery was incomplete
• The recoveries were therefore inadmissible

Thus, the evidence could not legally be relied upon.

---

B. Serious Investigative Lapses

The Supreme Court criticised the investigation for multiple failures:

• Important witnesses (household members, neighbours) were not properly examined
• Possible leads — especially the angle of organ trading — were ignored
• The crime scene was not secured in time, leading to contamination and loss of potential evidence

These lapses weakened the entire prosecution case.

---

C. Unreliable Confession (164 CrPC)

Koli’s confession under Section 164 CrPC was found to be unreliable because:

• He was kept in police custody for over 60 days
• He did not receive meaningful legal assistance
• His medical examination was not conducted at the proper time
• There was a real possibility of coercion or torture

Therefore, the confession could not be considered voluntary, independent, or trustworthy.

---

D. Weak Forensic Evidence

The forensic examination was limited only to:

• Identifying the victims, NOT linking the remains to Koli
• It did not prove how the bones were cut or whether the accused could have done it.

The Court also questioned the prosecution’s theory that a semi-educated domestic helper without medical training could dismember bodies with such precision.

This scientific weakness created major doubt.

---

E. Judicial Inconsistencies & “Anomalous Situation”

The Supreme Court observed a key inconsistency:

• In 12 similar cases, the High Court had acquitted Koli because of weak evidence
• Yet in one case, he remained in jail on the basis of the same type of evidence

The Court held that this would create an “anomalous situation” and amount to manifest injustice.

Criminal law requires guilt to be proven beyond reasonable doubt — suspicion or assumptions cannot substitute evidence.

---

F. Duty to Avoid Injustice, While Acknowledging Victims’ Pain

While delivering the judgment, the Court acknowledged:

• The crimes were heinous and heart-breaking
• The suffering of victims’ families is very real
• However, the justice system must follow due process and legal standards
• Conviction cannot rest on faulty investigation or incomplete evidence

Justice must be both fair and legally sound.

---

Final Decision & Impact

The Supreme Court allowed Koli’s curative petition and ordered his release.

This judgment is significant because it highlights:

• Major failures in investigation
• The responsibility of prosecution and police
• The seriousness of curative jurisdiction in preventing “manifest injustice”
• The importance of adhering strictly to evidentiary standards in criminal law

---

Why the Allahabad High Court Acquitted Surendra Koli

These were the same reasons later accepted by the Supreme Court.

---

1️. Recoveries Were Legally Invalid (Illegal / Unreliable Recoveries)

The High Court found that:

• Bones, skeleton parts, and other items were recovered from open drains and open areas.
• These were public places where anyone could access them — they were not exclusively accessible by the accused.
• Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, there must be a clear link between the accused’s disclosure statement and the actual recovery.
  Here, this link was missing.

Therefore, the recoveries were inadmissible in law.

---

2️. Scientific / Forensic Evidence Did Not Connect Koli to the Crime

The forensic reports could not establish:

• Which weapon caused the murders
• Who performed the dismemberment
• No DNA or blood evidence linked the recovered bones to Koli

In short:
“A crime happened” was proven, but “who committed the crime” was NOT proven.

---

3️. Confession Was Doubtful (Possibility of Coercion)

Koli’s confession under Section 164 CrPC was found unreliable because:

• He was held in police custody for over 60 days continuously
• Medical check-ups were not done properly
• No independent evidence supported the confession

So the High Court held that the confession was not voluntary.

---

4️. Major Lapses by the Investigating Agency

The Court stated clearly:

• Neighbours and other important witnesses were not examined properly
• Crime scene was not secured — many samples became contaminated or disappeared
• The “organ trade” angle was ignored intentionally

Due to these huge flaws, the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

---

5️. Circumstantial Evidence Chain Was Incomplete

In circumstantial cases, the law requires:

• A complete and unbroken chain of circumstances
• Each link must point only to the guilt of the accused
• No other logical explanation should remain

But in this case:

• Several links were missing
• Some links could apply to other people as well
• Some links were based on assumptions, not proof

The Court held that the chain was legally incomplete and weak.

---

6️. Trial Court’s Conviction Was Wrong (Perverse Findings)

The High Court observed:

• The trial court concluded guilt based on assumption → suspicion → conclusion, which is illegal
• It did not properly evaluate evidence
• It ignored fundamental rules of evidence law

Therefore, the conviction could not stand.

---

7️. Motive Was Not Established at All

The prosecution suggested theories like:

• Cannibalism
• Sexual assault
• Sudden violent behaviour
• Psychological disorder

But the Court said:

• None of these theories had clinical, forensic, eyewitness, or medical proof

Without motive, a circumstantial case becomes even weaker.

---

8️. Prosecution Did Not Address Alternative Possibilities

For example:

• Organ trade
• Third-party involvement
• Multiple offenders

The High Court said the investigation followed a “tunnel vision” approach.

In criminal law, unless alternative hypotheses are ruled out, conviction is not possible.

---

High Court’s Final Conclusion

“The evidence does not establish guilt.
Serious lapses in investigation and unreliable recoveries make the conviction unsafe.”

Thus, the High Court acquitted Koli in all cases.

Later, the Supreme Court upheld this reasoning, saying:

“The High Court’s decision was correct — the prosecution failed to prove guilt.”

1. Civil Dispute Notice

Used In: Property disputes, money recovery, agreement breaches, partition, tenancy issues
Purpose: To demand compliance or settlement before filing a civil suit
Key Points:

• Issued under Section 80 CPC when notice to Government authority is required
• Explains claim, relief sought, and time given to comply

---

2. Notice for Breach of Contract

Used In: Failure to perform a contract, delay, non-payment, defective goods/services
Purpose: To give a chance to rectify the breach
Key Points:

• Must mention contract terms violated
• Often sent before initiating a suit for specific performance or damages

---

3. Consumer Complaint Notice

Used In: Defective products, bad services, cheating by sellers or service providers
Purpose: To give the opposite party a chance to resolve before filing with Consumer Commission
Key Points:

• Helps avoid litigation if the seller resolves the issue

---

4. Property & Eviction Notice

Used In: Eviction, lease termination, rent defaults, illegal occupation
Purpose: To legally inform tenant/occupant before taking court action
Key Points:

• Includes time period for vacating (e.g., 15/30 days)
• Mentions rent defaults, misuse, or violation of tenancy agreement

---

5. Cheque Bounce Notice (Section 138 NI Act)

Used In: Dishonour of cheque due to insufficient funds, stop payment, signature mismatch
Purpose: To allow the drawer 15 days to pay after dishonour
Key Points:

• Must be issued within 30 days of cheque bounce
• Mandatory before filing criminal complaint

---

6. Family/Matrimonial Dispute Notice

Used In: Divorce, maintenance, child custody, cruelty, restitution of conjugal rights
Purpose: Last opportunity for settlement before litigation
Key Points:

• Often used in attempts for mutual settlement or mediation

---

7. Employment / Workplace Notice

Used In: Wrongful termination, unpaid salary, harassment, violation of service contract
Purpose: To record grievance and demand remedy before approaching labour court
Key Points:

• Important for record-keeping and future litigation

---

8. Defamation Notice

Used In: False statements harming reputation (written or spoken)
Purpose: To demand apology, retraction, and compensation
Key Points:

• Often resolves matter without going to court

---

9. Notice to Government Authorities (Section 80 CPC)

Used In: When suing Government departments, officials, or public bodies
Purpose: Mandatory pre-litigation intimation
Key Points:

• 2-month notice period
• Failure may result in rejection of suit

---

10. Corporate / Business Legal Notice

Used In: Trade disputes, partnership issues, copyright violations, debt recovery
Purpose: Formal warning before legal remedy
Key Points:

• Often includes strict timelines and consequences

---

Common Elements in All Legal Notices

• Name & details of sender
• Facts of the case
• Legal grounds of the claim
• Reliefs demanded
• Deadline for response (usually 7–30 days)
• Lawyer details

Relevant Law:

• The Indian Peafowl (Peacock) is protected under Schedule I of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
• Killing, hunting, or capturing it is a serious criminal offence under this Act.

 Legal Provision:

• Section 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 prescribes the punishment for offences related to protected animals.
• Since the peacock is a Schedule I species, it receives the highest level of protection.

 Punishment:

• Imprisonment: Minimum 3 years, which may extend up to 7 years.
• Fine: Minimum ₹10,000, which may go up to ₹25,000 or more, depending on the case and latest amendments.
• Both imprisonment and fine can be imposed together.

 No Excuse:

• Even possessing peacock feathers, meat, or body parts without legal permission is also an offence.
• Only naturally fallen feathers (not plucked or obtained from killing) are allowed to be possessed in limited quantity, and even that is regulated.

 Exceptions:

• The only limited defence allowed is self-defence or sudden necessity (for example, if the bird attacked and you acted to save yourself).
• This must be proven in court.

 What to Do if You See Someone Killing or Selling Peacock:

1. Immediately inform the Forest Department or local Police Station.
2. Provide evidence such as photos, location, and details.
3. Authorities can register a case under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 – Section 51.

Summary:

Offence	Law	Punishment
Killing or hunting a Peacock	Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 – Sec. 51	3–7 years imprisonment + ₹10,000–₹25,000 fine

Here’s a complete and detailed summary on “Types of Court Orders in India” — explained with classification, purpose, key characteristics, timing, and examples for each.
This will help you understand the hierarchy and functioning of different types of orders passed by Indian courts under civil and criminal procedure law.

---

TYPES OF COURT ORDERS IN INDIA

---

1. Interim Order (Temporary Order)

Meaning:
An order passed during the pendency of a case to preserve the status quo or protect the interests of parties until the final judgment.

Purpose:
To prevent irreparable loss or injustice before the case is finally decided.

Key Characteristics:

• Temporary in nature
• Issued under Section 94 & Order 39 CPC (Civil)
• Remains in force till further orders or disposal

Timing: During the trial
Example: Stay order, temporary injunction, maintenance order during divorce proceedings.

---

2. Final Order

Meaning:
An order that concludes the case, determining the rights and liabilities of the parties.

Purpose:
To settle the dispute conclusively.

Key Characteristics:

• Brings litigation to an end
• Enforceable decree/judgment follows
• Can be appealed against

Timing: At the end of the case
Example: A final decree in a property suit or a final judgment in a criminal trial.

---

3. Interlocutory Order

Meaning:
An order made during proceedings to assist in the progress of the case but not deciding the final rights.

Purpose:
To facilitate smooth conduct of proceedings.

Key Characteristics:

• Procedural in nature
• Non-final; doesn’t determine rights
• Generally not appealable (Sec 397(2) CrPC)

Timing: During proceedings before final judgment
Example: Granting bail, summoning a witness, or adjournment order.

---

4. Ex-Parte Order

Meaning:
An order passed without hearing the opposite party, usually due to non-appearance.

Purpose:
To ensure proceedings are not delayed because of one party’s absence.

Key Characteristics:

• Based on one party’s evidence
• Can be set aside under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC if sufficient cause shown

Timing: When one party fails to appear
Example: Ex-parte injunction restraining a party from alienating property.

---

5. Decree (Civil Cases)

Meaning:
A formal expression of adjudication conclusively determining rights of parties (Section 2(2) CPC).

Types:

• Preliminary Decree: Determines rights but requires further action (e.g., partition suit).
• Final Decree: Completely disposes of the suit.

Purpose:
To record the decision of the court on substantive issues.

Key Characteristics:

• Enforceable by execution
• Subject to appeal

Example: Decree for possession or recovery of money.

---

6. Order of Injunction

Meaning:
An order restraining a party from doing or compelling them to do a particular act.

Types:

• Temporary Injunction (Order 39 CPC)
• Permanent Injunction (Section 38 Specific Relief Act)

Purpose:
To maintain status quo or prevent irreparable harm.

Timing: Interim or final stage
Example: Restraining a builder from constructing on disputed land.

---

7. Stay Order

Meaning:
A direction from the court to temporarily halt proceedings or actions until further notice.

Purpose:
To prevent parallel or conflicting actions.

Example: High Court staying trial court proceedings pending appeal.

---

8. Consent Order / Compromise Order

Meaning:
An order based on mutual consent of parties recorded by the court.

Purpose:
To resolve disputes amicably.

Key Characteristics:

• Binding like a decree
• Based on voluntary agreement

Example: Settlement recorded in a divorce or civil dispute.

---

9. Remand Order

Meaning:
When a higher court sends a case back to a lower court for retrial or reconsideration.

Purpose:
To correct errors or omissions by the lower court.

Example: Appellate court remanding matter to trial court due to improper evidence recording.

---

10. Writ Orders (Constitutional)

Meaning:
Orders issued under Articles 32 & 226 of the Constitution for enforcement of fundamental rights.

Types:

1. Habeas Corpus – Release of unlawful detention
2. Mandamus – To compel performance of duty
3. Prohibition – To prevent overreach by lower courts
4. Certiorari – To quash unlawful orders
5. Quo Warranto – To question authority to hold office

Purpose:
To protect constitutional and legal rights of citizens.

---

11. Order of Dismissal

Meaning:
Court rejects a case or application either on merits or technical grounds.

Example: Case dismissed for default, limitation, or lack of evidence.

---

Landmark Case Laws

Case	Principle Established
Manohar Lal v. Seth Hiralal (1962 AIR 527)	Explained interim injunction powers under Section 94 CPC
Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra (1977 AIR 47)	Distinguished interlocutory from final orders under CrPC
Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing v. Swaraj Developers (2003)	Defined maintainability of appeals under CPC
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980)	Explained anticipatory bail as an interim order
K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy (2011)	Clarified powers of courts to pass interlocutory orders

Quick Summary Table

Type of Order	Stage	Purpose	Nature	Example
Interim	During case	Protect interest	Temporary	Stay order
Final	End of case	Decide rights	Permanent	Final decree
Interlocutory	During trial	Procedural aid	Temporary	Bail order
Ex-Parte	During trial	Expedite case	One-sided	Ex-parte injunction
Decree	After trial	Conclude dispute	Binding	Recovery decree
Writ	Constitutional	Enforce rights	Extraordinary	Habeas corpus