Supreme Court Sets Aside Interim Order in Second Appeal: U. Sudheera vs. C. Yashoda (2025)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 17 January 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 80

Judges: J.B. Pardiwala, J., R. Mahadevan, J.

Can a High Court grant interim relief in a second appeal before identifying the key legal questions? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial procedural issue in a civil appeal. This case revolves around a dispute over property rights and whether the High Court can issue interim orders before framing substantial questions of law in a second appeal. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, clarified the procedure to be followed by the High Courts while dealing with second appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The bench comprised Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, with the judgment authored by Justice R. Mahadevan.

Case Background

The case originates from a property dispute involving members of the Gazetted Officers Cooperative House Building Society. The Society had purchased land in Mangalam Village, Tirupati, including a 0.61-acre plot which is the subject of the dispute. The original owner of the land was Kannavaram Lokanadham, who sold it to M. Savithramma in 1981. The Society purchased the land from M. Savithramma in 1986.

The Government issued a notification to acquire the Society’s lands, but this was challenged by the Society in the High Court, which quashed the acquisition in 1987. Subsequently, the Tirupati Urban Development Authority approved a layout for the land in 1996, and plots were sold to the defendants.

In 2010, the Respondent No. 1 obtained an ex-parte mutation of revenue records for the 0.61-acre plot. Based on this, the Respondent No. 1 filed a suit for permanent injunction in 2011. The trial court initially ruled in favor of the Respondent No. 1 in 2016, but the first appellate court reversed this decision in 2022, stating that the Respondent No. 1 should have sought a declaration of title, not just an injunction. The Respondent No. 1 then filed a second appeal before the High Court, which granted an interim order of status quo.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Respondent No. 1 initially filed a suit for permanent injunction in O.S. No. 48 of 2011 before the 1st Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the Respondent No. 1 on 05.02.2016, presuming ownership based on revenue records. The First Appellate Court, i.e., the V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, reversed this decision on 11.11.2022, in A.S. No. 17/2016, holding that a suit for bare injunction was not maintainable without a declaration of title.

The Respondent No. 1 then filed a second appeal (S.A. No. 518 of 2023) before the High Court. After several adjournments due to non-service of respondents, the High Court, on 20.09.2024, granted an interim order of status quo without framing any substantial question of law. This interim order was extended on 26.09.2024. Aggrieved by this, the appellants, who are the legal heirs of Defendant No. 5 and Defendant Nos. 1, 3, and 6, appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core legal provision at play is Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which governs second appeals to the High Court. This section states that a second appeal can only be entertained if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a “substantial question of law.”

Section 100 of the CPC states:

“100. Second appeal. —(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by any Court subordinate to the High Court, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law.
(2) An appeal may lie under this section from an appellate decree passed ex parte.
(3) In an appeal under this section, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved in the appeal.
(4) Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question.
(5) The appeal shall be heard on the question so formulated and the respondent shall, at the hearing of the appeal, be allowed to argue that the case does not involve such question:
Provided that nothing in this sub -section shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power of the Court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question of law, not formulated by it, if it is satisfied that the case involves such question.”

This provision makes it clear that the High Court’s jurisdiction in a second appeal is contingent upon the presence of a substantial question of law. The High Court must first identify and formulate this question before proceeding with the appeal.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the High Court cannot pass an interim order in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) without first formulating a substantial question of law. They cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ram Phal v. Banarasi [(2003) 11 SCC 762], which held that the High Court must frame the question of law before dealing with the matter. This position was supported by subsequent decisions in Raghavendra Swamy Mutt v. Uttaradi Mutt [(2016) 11 SCC 235] and Bhagyashree Anant Gaonkar v. Narendra @ Nagesh Bharma Holkar [(2023) SCC Online 1236].
• The appellants contended that the High Court erred in granting interim relief based on a mere representation, especially when not all respondents had been served and the plaintiff had not sought a declaration of title.
• The appellants relied on Anathula Sudhakar v. P Buchi Reddy [(2008) 4 SCC 594], arguing that a suit for bare injunction without seeking a declaration of title is not maintainable.
• The appellants argued that the trial court’s decree was based on a presumption of ownership from revenue records, which is not valid as per Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import & Export Co. [(2019) 3 SCC 191]. This case held that mutation of land in revenue records does not create or extinguish title.
• The appellants asserted that the First Appellate Court had decided the appeal in their favor on facts, and thus, the High Court should not have granted an interim order based solely on the counsel’s representation.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that the court has inherent jurisdiction to issue interim orders to protect the ends of justice and safeguard the subject matter of proceedings, referencing Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal [AIR 1962 SC 527], as referred to in Vareed Jacob v. Sosamma Geeverghese and Ors. [(2004) 6 SCC 378].
• The respondent submitted that since the CPC does not have a specific provision for protecting the subject matter of proceedings during an appeal under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC, the inherent power of the Court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) can be invoked.
• The respondent argued that the impugned order was merely an ex-parte ad interim arrangement for a limited period and did not create or divest any rights. It was only to maintain the status quo. The respondent cited the Bombay High Court’s judgment in Vrajesh Anandrao Kerkar v. Durgesh Tulsidas Kerkar and Others [2024 SCC OnLine Bom 472].
• The respondent distinguished the case from Ram Phal (supra), arguing that in that case, the execution of the decree was stayed, whereas in the present case, only a status quo order was passed. Similarly, the respondent argued that Bhagyashree Anant Gaonkar (supra) was factually distinguishable as the High Court had passed the final judgment without framing any question of law.
• The respondent asserted that the plaintiff had a right and share in the suit property and that the second appeal should be decided after proper perusal of all documents. The interim order was only to protect the interests of the parties.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following 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.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

• Ram Phal v. Banarasi [(2003) 11 SCC 762] – The Supreme Court of India held that the High Court must frame a substantial question of law before granting any interim order in a second appeal.
• Raghavendra Swamy Mutt v. Uttaradi Mutt [(2016) 11 SCC 235] – The Supreme Court reiterated that the High Court cannot admit a second appeal without examining whether it raises a substantial question of law.
• Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari [(2001) 3 SCC 179] – The Supreme Court held that the High Court cannot proceed to hear a second appeal without formulating the substantial question of law involved.
• Roop Singh v. Ram Singh [(2000) 3 SCC 708] – The Supreme Court reiterated that under Section 100 CPC, the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a second appeal is confined only to such appeals which involve a substantial question of law.
• State Bank of India v. S.N. Goyal [(2008) 8 SCC 92] – The Supreme Court highlighted common errors made by High Courts in dealing with second appeals, emphasizing the need to formulate substantial questions of law.
• Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur v. Punjab SEB [(2010) 13 SCC 216] – The Supreme Court stated that a second appeal cannot be entertained unless a substantial question of law is involved.
• Umerkhan v. Bismillabi [(2011) 9 SCC 684] – The Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction of the High Court in hearing a second appeal is founded on the formulation of a substantial question of law.
• Bhagyashree Anant Gaonkar v. Narendra @ Nagesh Bharma Holkar [(2023) SCC Online 1236] – The Supreme Court reiterated that the High Court can consider a second appeal only on a substantial question of law.
• Hemavathi & others v. V.Hombegowda and another [2023 INSC 848 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1206] – The Supreme Court observed that if no substantial question of law arose in the case, then, the appeal could not have been entertained.
• Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal [1961 SCC OnLine SC 17 : 1962 Supp (1) SCR 450 : AIR 1962 SC 527] – The Supreme Court discussed the inherent powers of the court under Section 151 of CPC, stating that it cannot be used to nullify the express provisions of the Code.
• Anathula Sudhakar v. P Buchi Reddy [(2008) 4 SCC 594] – This case was cited by the appellants to argue that a suit for bare injunction without seeking a declaration of title is not maintainable.
• Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import & Export Co. [(2019) 3 SCC 191] – This case was cited by the appellants to argue that mutation of land in revenue records does not create or extinguish title.

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

• Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – This section governs second appeals to the High Court, requiring the presence of a substantial question of law.
• Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – This section deals with the inherent powers of the court, which cannot be used to override express provisions of the Code.

Authorities Table

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court heavily relied on Ram Phal v. Banarasi [(2003) 11 SCC 762]*, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt v. Uttaradi Mutt [(2016) 11 SCC 235]*, Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari [(2001) 3 SCC 179]*, Roop Singh v. Ram Singh [(2000) 3 SCC 708]*, State Bank of India v. S.N. Goyal [(2008) 8 SCC 92]*, Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur v. Punjab SEB [(2010) 13 SCC 216]*, Umerkhan v. Bismillabi [(2011) 9 SCC 684]*, Bhagyashree Anant Gaonkar v. Narendra @ Nagesh Bharma Holkar [(2023) SCC Online 1236]*, and Hemavathi & others v. V.Hombegowda and another [2023 INSC 848 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1206]* to emphasize that a High Court cannot pass an interim order in a second appeal without first formulating a substantial question of law. These cases consistently held that the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC is contingent upon the presence of a substantial question of law.
• The Court referred to Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal [1961 SCC OnLine SC 17 : 1962 Supp (1) SCR 450 : AIR 1962 SC 527]* to clarify that while the court has inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), these powers cannot be used to override the express provisions of the Code, particularly Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
• The Court acknowledged the appellants’ reliance on Anathula Sudhakar v. P Buchi Reddy [(2008) 4 SCC 594]* and Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import & Export Co. [(2019) 3 SCC 191]* to support their arguments regarding the maintainability of the suit and the validity of ownership based on revenue records.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the procedural mandate of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The Court emphasized that the High Court’s jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal is conditional upon the formulation of a substantial question of law. The Court was concerned that the High Court had bypassed this mandatory step by granting an interim order without first identifying the key legal questions. The Court also emphasized the importance of adhering to established legal procedures and precedents, particularly those set by the Supreme Court itself. The Court’s reasoning was also influenced by the need to ensure that the inherent powers of the court are not used to circumvent the express provisions of the Code.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

Final Decision

The Supreme Court set aside the interim order passed by the High Court on 20.09.2024 in S.A. No. 518 of 2023. The Court held that the High Court should first formulate a substantial question of law before granting any interim relief in a second appeal. The Supreme Court also directed the High Court to dispose of the second appeal expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months.

Implications

This judgment has significant implications for the High Courts when dealing with second appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The key takeaways are:

• Mandatory Framing of Substantial Question of Law: High Courts must strictly adhere to the requirement of formulating a substantial question of law before proceeding with a second appeal. This is not a mere formality but a jurisdictional prerequisite.
• No Interim Relief Before Framing Question: High Courts cannot grant any interim relief or protection to the appellant unless a substantial question of law has been framed. This clarifies the procedure to be followed in second appeals and prevents the High Court from overstepping its jurisdiction.
• Inherent Powers Not a Substitute: The inherent powers of the court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) cannot be invoked to bypass the express provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
• Expeditious Disposal: The Supreme Court’s direction to the High Court to dispose of the second appeal expeditiously emphasizes the importance of timely resolution of legal disputes.

This judgment reinforces the procedural integrity of the second appeal process and ensures that High Courts do not exercise jurisdiction that is not explicitly conferred upon them by law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in U. Sudheera vs. C. Yashoda (2025) clarifies the procedure to be followed by the High Courts while dealing with second appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The Court has reiterated that the High Court’s jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal is conditional upon the formulation of a substantial question of law, and no interim relief can be granted before this crucial step is taken. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to established legal procedures and precedents. This case serves as a crucial reminder to the High Courts to exercise their jurisdiction within the bounds of the law and to ensure that the procedural safeguards are maintained in the administration of justice.