Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered an appeal against an interim order dated 20.09.2024 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in a second appeal. The dispute originated from a suit for permanent injunction (O.S.No.48/2011) filed by the respondent-plaintiff concerning a property in Mangalam Village, Tirupati. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, but the First Appellate Court set aside the decree, holding that a suit for bare injunction without seeking declaration of title was not maintainable. The plaintiff then filed a second appeal before the High Court. Without formulating any substantial question of law as required under Section 100 CPC, the High Court passed an interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo for a limited period. The appellants, being the legal representatives of the deceased defendant and other defendants, challenged this interim order. The Supreme Court examined the legal provisions and precedents, including Ram Phal v. Banarasi, which held that the High Court cannot grant interim orders without first framing substantial questions of law. The Court rejected the respondent's argument that the inherent power under Section 151 CPC could be invoked to pass ad interim orders in the interregnum. The Supreme Court held that the statutory mandate of Section 100 CPC must be strictly complied with, and any interim order passed without formulating substantial questions of law is unsustainable. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned interim order and directed the High Court to first formulate the substantial questions of law before considering any interim relief.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Interim Order - Section 100, Order XLI, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The High Court cannot pass any ad interim order, even for a limited period, before formulating the substantial question(s) of law as mandated under Section 100(4) CPC. The inherent power under Section 151 CPC cannot be invoked to bypass the statutory requirement. The impugned order granting status quo was set aside. (Paras 8-14) B) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The jurisdiction of the High Court in a second appeal is confined to cases involving a substantial question of law, which must be precisely stated in the memorandum of appeal and formulated by the court before hearing. Any interim order passed without such formulation is contrary to the mandate of Section 100 CPC. (Paras 10-11) C) Property Law - Suit for Injunction - Declaration of Title - The First Appellate Court had held that a suit for bare injunction without seeking declaration of title is not maintainable, relying on Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy. The High Court's interim order was passed without considering this aspect. (Para 5.2) D) Property Law - Revenue Records - Title - Mutation of land in revenue records does not create or extinguish title nor has presumptive value on title, as held in Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import & Export Co. (Para 5.3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court can pass an ad interim order for a limited period before framing substantial question(s) of law in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned interim order dated 20.09.2024 passed by the High Court, and directed the High Court to first formulate the substantial questions of law before considering any interim relief.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC requires formulation of substantial question of law before any interim order
- inherent powers under Section 151 CPC cannot override statutory mandate
- suit for bare injunction without declaration of title may not be maintainable
- revenue records do not confer title
