.jpeg){kind=small}
Case Snapshot
Case Name: S. Panchalingu & Ors. v. People's Education Trust (R) & Ors.
Citation: 2026 INSC 1010
Bench: Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan
Date of Judgment: September 18, 2026
Area of Law: Civil Procedure Code, Section 92 CPC, Public Charities, Interim Relief
The Judgment in One Line
Supreme Court holds that a Civil Court cannot pass protective or preservatory interim orders pending disposal of a leave application under Section 92 CPC.
Why this Judgement Matters
This judgment resolves a significant conflict among High Courts on whether courts can pass interim orders during the pendency of a leave application under Section 92 CPC. It establishes that leave is a mandatory pre-condition for institution of a suit against public charities, and until leave is granted, there is no lis before the Court. The ruling protects public trusts from vexatious litigation while clarifying that in urgent cases, notice may be dispensed with. It balances the protective shield and remedial sword objectives of Section 92.
Background
The appellants filed a suit under Section 92 CPC against People's Education Trust along with an application seeking leave. During pendency of the leave application, the Trial Court appointed an ad hoc committee to manage the trust's affairs under Order XL Rule 1(a) CPC. The High Court of Karnataka set aside this order, holding that a suit under Section 92 remains "stillborn" without leave, and the Court lacks jurisdiction to pass interlocutory orders. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues Before the Court
Whether a Civil Court can pass protective or preservatory interim orders during pendency of a leave application under Section 92 CPC.
Whether Order XL Rule 1 CPC can be invoked as a supplemental proceeding before grant of leave.
Whether Section 151 CPC can be invoked to appoint a receiver pending leave.
Whether the "stillborn" doctrine applies to suits under Section 92 CPC.
What Did the Supreme Court Hold?
Leave Is a Mandatory Pre-Condition
Section 92(2) mandates that no suit claiming reliefs under Section 92(1) shall be instituted except in conformity with its provisions.
The 1976 Amendment substituted the requirement of Advocate-General's consent with "having obtained leave of the Court."
Leave is a condition precedent to institution; without it, the suit is not maintainable.
No Interim Orders Pending Leave
A suit under Section 92 is instituted only upon grant of leave.
Until leave is granted, there is no lis before the Court.
The Court cannot pass protective or preservatory interim orders, including appointment of a receiver.
Order XL Rule 1 Not Applicable
Order XL Rule 1 uses "before or after decree," presupposing a validly instituted suit.
Section 94 (supplemental proceedings) presupposes an underlying proceeding.
Without leave, the original action does not mature into a proceeding within which supplemental applications can be entertained.
Section 141 Cannot Override Safeguards
Section 141 makes procedure applicable to miscellaneous proceedings "as far as it can be made applicable."
It cannot be invoked to override substantive safeguards vested in public charities.
Section 151 Cannot Be Invoked
Inherent powers under Section 151 cannot override express provisions of Section 92.
The principle of generalia specialibus non derogant applies.
Inherent powers can be invoked only where jurisdiction already exists.
Receiver Appointment Is Intrusive
Appointment of receiver in respect of a public trust is intrusive and dislodges management.
It defeats the purpose of leave requirement, namely protection from litigation.
Urgent Relief Possible
Where facts disclose necessity of urgent relief, notice prior to grant of leave may be dispensed with.
Court must record prima facie cogent reasons for granting leave.
Such approach harmonises the dual objectives of Section 92.
Key Legal Principles
Leave under Section 92 CPC is a mandatory pre-condition for institution of suit against public charities.
Until leave is granted, there is no lis before the Court and no jurisdiction to pass interim orders.
Order XL Rule 1 CPC cannot be invoked as supplemental proceeding before grant of leave.
Section 141 CPC cannot override substantive safeguards vested in public charities.
Section 151 CPC cannot be invoked to circumvent express provisions of Section 92.
Appointment of receiver in public trust matters is intrusive and cannot be made pending leave.
In urgent cases, notice prior to grant of leave may be dispensed with for compelling reasons.
The "stillborn" doctrine applies: a suit under Section 92 is not instituted until leave is granted.
Important Precedents
Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal – Code is not exhaustive; courts possess inherent jurisdiction in circumstances not covered by Order XXXIX.
R.M. Narayana Chettiar v. N. Lakshmanan Chettiar – Suit instituted without leave under Section 92 is not maintainable at all.
Vareed Jacob v. Sosamma Geevarghese – Source of power to grant interim relief is Section 94; exercise only if circumstances fall under rules.
Muhammad Ali Khan v. Ahmad Ali Khan – Distinguished; dealt with private trust to which Section 92 is inapplicable.
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Manjeti Laxmi Kantha Rao – Civil courts have jurisdiction unless expressly or impliedly excluded; presumption in favour of jurisdiction.
Practical Impact
For Advocates: This judgment clarifies that no interim orders can be sought pending leave under Section 92. Suits must await grant of leave before seeking receiver or other interim relief.
For Future Litigation: The ruling resolves the conflict among High Courts and provides certainty on the scope of Section 92.
For Public Trusts: The judgment protects trusts from vexatious litigation and intrusive interim orders pending leave.
For Urgent Cases: Courts can dispense with notice prior to grant of leave if facts warrant urgent relief, but must record reasons.
Lawcurb Quick Insight
The Court clarified that while no interim orders can be passed pending leave, the Court can grant leave ex parte in urgent cases. This balances the protective shield and remedial sword objectives of Section 92.
Lawcurb Practice Note
Advocates filing suits under Section 92 should first obtain leave before seeking any interim relief. In urgent cases, apply for ex parte grant of leave with cogent reasons. Do not seek appointment of receiver pending leave.
Remember this Ratio
A Civil Court cannot pass protective or preservatory interim orders pending disposal of a leave application under Section 92 CPC.
Final Outcome
Civil Appeals dismissed.
High Court judgment dated June 25, 2025 upheld.
Civil Court cannot pass protective or preservatory interim orders pending leave under Section 92 CPC.
In urgent cases, notice prior to grant of leave may be dispensed with for compelling reasons to be recorded in writing.
Pending applications disposed of.
Lawcurb Verdict
This judgment resolves a significant conflict among High Courts on the scope of Section 92 CPC. By holding that no interim orders can be passed pending leave, the Court protects public trusts from vexatious litigation and intrusive orders. The clarification on ex parte grant of leave in urgent cases balances the protective and remedial objectives of Section 92. A well-reasoned judgment that provides certainty to litigants and courts.
Exam Lens
Question 1: What is the nature of leave under Section 92 CPC? Can a suit be instituted without leave?
Answer: Leave under Section 92 CPC is a mandatory pre-condition for institution of a suit against public charities. Section 92(2) mandates that no suit claiming reliefs under Section 92(1) shall be instituted except in conformity with its provisions. The 1976 Amendment substituted the requirement of Advocate-General's consent with "having obtained leave of the Court." Without leave, the suit is not maintainable. In S. Panchalingu, the Supreme Court held that until leave is granted, there is no lis before the Court and no jurisdiction to pass interim orders.
Question 2: Can a receiver be appointed pending leave under Section 92 CPC?
Answer: No. The Supreme Court held that a receiver cannot be appointed pending leave under Section 92 CPC. Order XL Rule 1 uses "before or after decree," presupposing a validly instituted suit. Section 94 (supplemental proceedings) presupposes an underlying proceeding. Without leave, the original action does not mature into a proceeding within which supplemental applications can be entertained. Appointment of receiver in respect of a public trust is intrusive and dislodges management, defeating the purpose of leave requirement.
Question 3: What is the "stillborn" doctrine in the context of Section 92 CPC?
Answer: The "stillborn" doctrine means that a suit under Section 92 CPC remains stillborn in the absence of leave. The suit is not instituted until leave is granted. In S. Panchalingu, the Supreme Court affirmed this doctrine, holding that the grant of leave is an essential and mandatory pre-condition, in the absence of which there exists no pending proceeding in which interlocutory applications can be entertained. The Court also clarified that in urgent cases, notice prior to grant of leave may be dispensed with.
This report is prepared by Lawcurb for educational and informational purposes only. It is a concise summary of the judgment and should not be construed as legal advice. Readers are encouraged to refer to the original judgment before relying on any legal proposition.