Courts Supreme Court
Supreme Court examines if civil courts can grant interim relief during Section 92 leave
The case concerns a dispute between S. Panchalingu and others (Appellants) and People’s Education Trust (Respondents) regarding whether a Civil Court has the power to pass protective interim orders, such as appointing a receiver, while an…
The case concerns a dispute between S. Panchalingu and others (Appellants) and People’s Education Trust (Respondents) regarding whether a Civil Court has the power to pass protective interim orders, such as appointing a receiver, while an application for leave to institute a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure is pending.
Who it concerns: Appellants: S. Panchalingu & Ors.; Respondents: People’s Education Trust (R) & Others; Bench: Justice Manmohan.
What the court decided
- The Court identified the substantial question of law: whether a Civil Court possesses the power to pass protective or preservatory interim orders during the pendency of a leave application under Section 92 CPC.
- The Court noted a divergence of judicial opinion among High Courts, with Allahabad, Bombay, Kerala, and Madras recognizing protective jurisdiction, while Orissa and Karnataka taking the contrary view.
- The Court recorded the impugned judgment of the High Court of Karnataka dated 25th June 2025, which set aside the order of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, that had constituted an ad hoc committee to manage the trust pending further directions.
- The Court recorded the arguments of the Appellants, who contended that the Court retains power to appoint a receiver under Section 94 read with Order XL Rule 1 and inherent jurisdiction under Section 151.
- The Court recorded the arguments of the Respondents, who contended that the suit is 'stillborn' without leave and that Order XL Rule 1 presupposes a pending suit.
Also in the document
- The judgment is marked as 'REPORTABLE'.
- The text provided is truncated and contains only the identification of the legal question, the conflict of judgments, and the parties' arguments; it does not contain the Court's final decision, operative directions, or any specific deadline.
- The Court noted that the High Court of Karnataka reaffirmed its earlier view that a suit under Section 92 remains 'stillborn' in the absence of leave.
How this was written
An AI model running on our own computer read the government document and wrote this summary. No person has checked it.
✓ Figures checked. Every number in this summary was found in the document by an automated check.
That check compares numbers only. It cannot confirm that the wording says what the document says — so the original document is always the authority.
The original document
Supreme Court of India — orders & judgments
Court order · 19 Sep 2026
Read it here
Discussion
No one has discussed this document yet.