U. Sudheera & Others vs C. Yashoda & Others

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

17 January 2025

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 567 of 2025

Result

Allowed

Bench

J.B. Pardiwala, R Mahadevan

Citation

[2025] 2 S.C.R. 92 : 2025 INSC 80

Acts & Sections

CPC

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court can pass any ad interim order for a limited period, before framing substantial question(s) of law, while dealing with a second appeal filed under Order XLI r/w Section 100 CPC.

Headnote

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.100 – Second appeal – In second appeal, High Court granted the interim relief directing the parties to maintain status quo, without formulating substantial questions of law as mandated u/s.100 – Challenge to: Held: Interim order passed by the High Court set aside – High Court cannot grant an interim order, without framing substantial question of law as required to be framed u/s.100 – It acquires jurisdiction to deal with the second appeal on merits only when it frames a substantial question of law u/s.100 – If no substantial question of law arises, the second appeal cannot be entertained and ought to be dismissed, as the jurisdiction of the High Court itself is not yet invoked. [Paras 10.2, 10.4] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – ss.100, 151 – Practice in some High Courts to order Notice of Motion, where even before an appeal is admitted, the respondents are granted opportunity to contest the case – High Court in exercise of its power u/s.151, if can grant interim orders:

Held: No – High Court cannot grant any interim protection to the appellant, unless the substantial question of law is framed u/s.100(4) or as per the Proviso – Inherent power u/s.151 cannot be used by the High Court in violation of the express mandates in other provisions of the Code. [Para 10.3]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.100 – Second appeal – Jurisdiction of High Court – Discussed.

Judgment R. Mahadevan, J. Leave granted. 2. The challenge made in this appeal is to the interim order dated 20.09.2024 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi1 in the Second Appeal bearing No.518/2023. For the sake of clarity and ease of reference, the order impugned herein is reproduced below: “Learned counsel for the respondent No.9 is present. Notice sent to respondent No.8 was served. Therefore, service of respondent No.8 is ‘held sufficient’. Learned counsel for the appellant is permitted to take out steps for filing substitute service against the respondent Nos.4, 6

View Subscription Plans →