Interlocutory application (commonly abbreviated as "IA") is an application filed in a suit, appeal, or proceeding already instituted in a court, seeking interim or ancillary relief that does not finally determine the rights of the parties. Under Indian law, interlocutory applications are governed by Sections 94 and 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which empower courts to grant supplemental proceedings including temporary injunctions, attachment of property, appointment of receivers, and other interim measures.
Legal definition
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 does not provide a standalone definition of "interlocutory application," but the concept is operationalised through several provisions:
Section 94 — Supplemental proceedings: In order to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated, the Court may, if it is so prescribed — (a) issue a warrant to arrest the defendant and bring him before the Court to show cause why he should not give security for his appearance; (b) direct the defendant to furnish security for his appearance; (c) grant a temporary injunction and in case of disobedience commit the person guilty thereof to the civil prison; (d) appoint a receiver of any property and enforce the duties of a receiver.
Section 141: The procedure provided in this Code in regard to suits shall be followed, as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings in any Court of civil jurisdiction.
An interlocutory application is thus any application made in pending proceedings that seeks orders of an interim nature — orders that do not decide the substantive rights of the parties but address incidental, procedural, or urgent matters arising during the litigation.
How courts have interpreted this term
Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society v. Swaraj Developers [(2003) 6 SCC 659]
The Supreme Court held that an interlocutory order is one that does not finally determine the rights of the parties. The test is whether the order, if made in favour of the applicant, would finally dispose of the matter. If it would not, the order is interlocutory; if it would, the order is a final order, regardless of the stage at which it is passed.
Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania [(1981) 4 SCC 8]
The Supreme Court drew the distinction between interlocutory orders and final orders for the purpose of appeal. The Court held that an order is interlocutory if it is passed during the pendency of a suit or proceeding and does not decide any issue or matter in controversy between the parties. Only final orders — those that conclusively determine rights — are appealable under Section 104 CPC, unless specifically made appealable.
Types of interlocutory applications
Common types of interlocutory applications in Indian civil litigation include:
- Application for temporary injunction (Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2): To restrain a party from committing an act or to maintain the status quo.
- Application for appointment of receiver (Order XL): To appoint a neutral person to manage disputed property.
- Application for attachment before judgment (Order XXXVIII): To prevent a defendant from disposing of assets pending decree.
- Application for commission (Order XXVI): To examine witnesses or conduct local investigations.
- Application for amendment of pleadings (Order VI Rule 17): To add, alter, or strike out matters in the plaint or written statement.
- Application for discovery and interrogatories (Order XI): To compel disclosure of documents or answers to questions.
Why this matters
Interlocutory applications are the lifeblood of day-to-day civil litigation in India. While the main suit may take years to reach trial, interlocutory applications address urgent matters that cannot await final adjudication. In property disputes, the grant or refusal of a temporary injunction at the interlocutory stage often determines the practical outcome of the case, because the party in possession typically enjoys a significant advantage.
For practitioners, understanding the distinction between interlocutory and final orders has critical implications for appealability. Under the CPC, interlocutory orders are generally not appealable except where specifically made so under Order XLIII Rule 1. Revision under Section 115 CPC also does not lie against interlocutory orders after the 2002 amendment. This means that most interim orders must be challenged through writ jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution.
A common procedural error is filing an interlocutory application without proper factual foundation. Courts require applications for interim relief to be supported by affidavit evidence, particularly for injunctions under Order XXXIX. An unsupported application is likely to be rejected, and the delay in refiling may itself cause the very prejudice that the application sought to prevent.
Related terms
Broader concepts:
Specific types of interlocutory relief:
Frequently asked questions
Is an interlocutory order appealable?
Generally, interlocutory orders are not appealable under the CPC. However, Order XLIII Rule 1 lists specific interlocutory orders that are appealable, including orders granting or refusing temporary injunctions, orders appointing or refusing to appoint a receiver, and orders granting or refusing leave to amend. Other interlocutory orders may be challenged through revision under Section 115 CPC or writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.
What is the difference between an interlocutory order and a final order?
An interlocutory order does not finally determine the rights of the parties; it addresses incidental or interim matters during the pendency of proceedings. A final order conclusively determines the rights of the parties in respect of a matter in controversy. The distinction is material because only final orders are ordinarily appealable under the CPC.
Can an interlocutory application be filed at any stage of the suit?
Yes. An interlocutory application may be filed at any stage of the suit — before the filing of written statement, during trial, or even after arguments but before judgment. However, the timing and relevance of the application will influence the court's exercise of discretion in granting the relief sought.
This entry is part of the Veritect Indian Legal Glossary, a comprehensive reference of Indian legal terminology grounded in statutory text and judicial interpretation.
Last updated: 2026-03-27. Veritect provides this content for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.