S. 100 CPC | High Courts Cannot Pass Interim Order In Second Appeal Without Framing Substantial Question Of Law : Supreme Court

Observing that a second appeal under Section 100 CPC cannot proceed without framing substantial questions of law, the Supreme Court set aside the Andhra Pradesh High Court's order which granted an interim relief in the plaintiff's favor without framing a 'substantial question of law'.The bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan was hearing an appeal on the question whether the High Court could pass any ad interim order for a limited period, before framing the substantial question(s) of law, while dealing with a second appeal filed under Order XLI r/w Section 100 CPC.Answering negatively, the Court observed: “Concededly, in the present case, the High Court, without formulating substantial questions of law, granted the interim relief by directing the parties to maintain status quo, till the next date of hearing. The said interim order was also subsequently extended. It is also pertinent to point out that all the respondents in the second appeal have not been served and notice was unserved qua Respondent Nos.4, 6 and 7 therein. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the High Court could not have passed the interim order without satisfying itself of the existence of a substantial question of law, as mandated under Section 100 CPC.” “This Court has categorically held that the High Court acquires jurisdiction to deal with the second appeal on merits only when it frames a substantial question of law as required to be framed under Section 100 CPC; and it cannot grant an interim order, without framing substantial question of law.”, the court added. Also, the Court highlighted the practice prevalent in various High courts to order Notice of Motion, whereby even before an appeal is admitted, the respondents are granted an opportunity to contest the case. Reference was drawn from the case of Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal (1962) to observe that even in such cases also, the High Court cannot grant interim orders in the exercise of their inherent powers under Section 151 of CPC in violation of the express mandate to frame a substantial question of law under the Code. “In such cases, though the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 151 of CPC is generally empowered to grant interim orders to preserve the subject matter of the dispute and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, we are of the opinion, the court cannot grant any interim protection to the appellant, unless the substantial question of law is framed under Section 100 (4) or as per the Proviso. On the other hand, if the High Court is prima facie of the view that the substantial question of law involved would not require much time for disposal, the court is bound to frame the substantial question of law at the stage of admission and then order short notice. The High Court cannot use its inherent power under Section 151 in violation of the express mandates in other provisions of the Code.” “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 added. In the light of the aforesaid settled legal position, the Court set aside the interim order passed by the High Court. The Appeal was allowed, accordingly. Appearance: For Petitioner(s) Mr. Nishanth Patil, AOR Mr. Mv Mukunda, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkhan, Sr. Adv. Mr. M. Rambabu, Adv. M/s. M. Rambabu & Co. Case Title: U. SUDHEERA & OTHERS VERSUS C. YASHODA & OTHERSCitation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 79Click here to read/download the judgment

S. 100 CPC | High Courts Cannot Pass Interim Order In Second Appeal Without Framing Substantial Question Of Law : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

Tags