High Court Cannot Grant Interim Relief In Regular Second Appeal Without Framing Substantial Question Of Law

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan heard an appeal against an interim order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 20.09.2024 in Second Appeal No.518 of 2023, which had directed parties to maintain status quo in a suit for permanent injunction without formulating the substantial question(s) of law required under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned interim order, holding that a High Court could not grant interim protection in a regular second appeal before satisfying itself that the case involved a substantial question of law and framing that question as mandated by Section 100 CPC. The Court observed that the High Court’s power under Section 151 CPC could not be exercised so as to “nullify the provisions of the Code.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Thus, the law is clear that a second appeal will be maintainable before the High Court, only if it is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. If no substantial question of law arises, the second appeal could not have been entertained and the same ought to have been dismissed, as the jurisdiction of the High Court itself is not yet invoked.” The Court also relied on precedents such as Ram Phal v. Banarasi and Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to reiterate that “the High Court is required to frame the question of law first and thereafter deal with the matter.”

Background

The dispute arose from a suit (O.S. No.48 of 2011) filed by Respondent No.1 for permanent injunction in respect of a 0.61 acre plot developed by a cooperative society in Mangalam Village, Tirupati. The trial court decreed the suit on 05.02.2016, but the first appellate court allowed the appeal filed by the defendants on 11.11.2022, holding that a suit for bare injunction without declaration of title was not maintainable. The plaintiff then filed Second Appeal No.518 of 2023 before the Andhra Pradesh High Court.

On 20.09.2024 the High Court, after noting service on some respondents and permitting steps for substitute service on others, recorded a representation by senior counsel for the appellant that the appellants were in possession and that respondents were attempting to interfere, and directed both parties to “maintain status-quo till 25.09.2024.” That interim order was later extended to 17.10.2024. Several respondents had not been served when the interim relief was granted.

Appellants challenged the interim order before the Supreme Court, contending that a High Court could not pass an interim order in a regular second appeal without framing substantial questions of law under Section 100 CPC; they relied on this Court’s decisions in Ram Phal, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and related authorities. The contesting respondent argued that courts possessed inherent power under Section 151 CPC to protect the subject matter and preserve status quo pending further orders, and that the interim arrangement was only temporary and did not affect the decree’s operation.

The Supreme Court held that while a High Court had inherent powers to pass interim orders in appropriate situations, those powers could not be exercised in a manner inconsistent with the express provisions of Section 100 CPC. The Court found that the High Court erred in granting the interim relief without first forming an opinion and framing the substantial question(s) of law; it set aside the impugned order dated 20.09.2024 and allowed the appeal. The Court made no order as to costs and disposed of pending applications.

Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 567 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 27761 of 2024) Case Title: U. Sudheera & Others v. C. Yashoda & Others Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Sri S. Rajendra Prasad, Senior Counsel (appearing for appellants) For the Respondent(s): Counsel for Respondent No.1 and other respondents (names not specified in the judgment)