The Supreme Court in a recent judgement has emphasized the importance of considering the question of jurisdiction even when granting interim relief. The Court observed that if a party raises an objection to the maintainability of the suit or claims that it is barred by law, and on that basis argues that interim relief should not be granted, then the court should form and record a prima facie satisfaction that the suit is maintainable or not barred by law before granting relief. The Supreme Court observed that this exercise requires a thorough analysis of the averments made in the plaint, the application for interim relief, the written objections against it, and the relevant law cited in support of the objections. It was observed that such a prima facie satisfaction is an indispensable part of the court’s reasoning when deciding whether there is a prima facie case for interim relief, whether the balance of convenience is in favor of granting it, and whether non-granting it would cause irreparable harm and prejudice. The Supreme Court further observed that it is inappropriate for the court to assume that the question of maintainability will be decided as a preliminary issue under Rule 2 of Order XIV, CPC, and then proceed to grant protection pro tem without recording its prima facie satisfaction on the question of maintainability. Such an action could amount to an improper exercise of power. If, however, during the hearing of the application for interim relief, the court finds that the suit is barred by law or is not maintainable, it cannot dismiss it without framing a preliminary issue after the written statement is filed, though such an opinion can be assigned for denying interim relief. In exceptional situations where deciding the point of maintainability of the suit could take time, and non-granting of protection pro tem could lead to irreversible consequences, the court may proceed to make an appropriate order to avoid irreparable harm or injury or undue hardship to the party claiming the relief and/or to ensure that the proceedings are not rendered infructuous by reason of non-interference by the court.