Summary
The Supreme Court set aside a High Court status quo order passed in a second appeal before any substantial question of law had been formulated and while some respondents were still unserved. The High Court's jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC arises only on formulating a substantial question of law, and the inherent power under Section 151 cannot be used to grant interim protection in disregard of that mandate.
Issues
- Whether the High Court can grant an ad interim order, such as a direction to maintain status quo for a limited period, in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC before formulating a substantial question of law.
- Whether the inherent power under Section 151 CPC permits such interim relief at the pre-admission stage.
Provisions considered
- Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Quoted and applied: a second appeal lies only if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law, which it must formulate under sub-section (4), with the appeal heard on that question. The High Court acquires jurisdiction to deal with the appeal, including by interim orders, only on such formulation, so the status quo order passed without it was unsustainable. (¶¶ 8, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 11, 12)
- Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Though the High Court generally has inherent power to preserve the subject matter of a dispute, that power cannot be exercised in violation of the express mandate of Section 100; following Manohar Lal Chopra, where the Code expressly deals with a matter, inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to nullify it. (¶¶ 6.1, 10.3)
Held
- A second appeal is maintainable only if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law; it must frame that question at admission and hear the parties on it, and if no such question arises the appeal must be dismissed, since the High Court's jurisdiction is not invoked. (¶¶ 10.2, 10.3, 10.4)
- Where the High Court issues notice of motion before admission, it is implied that it is not prima facie satisfied with the case; in such a situation it cannot grant interim protection to the appellant unless a substantial question of law has been framed under Section 100(4) or the proviso. If the question would not take long to decide, the Court must frame it at admission and order short notice. (¶ 10.3)
- The inherent power under Section 151 CPC cannot be used to override the express requirements of Section 100; where the Code deals expressly with a matter, its provisions are normally exhaustive. (¶ 10.3)
- Although the High Court may pass an ex parte interim order, it cannot grant ad interim relief in a second appeal without examining the parties and formulating the substantial question of law. Characterising the order as a limited ad interim arrangement to preserve the subject matter did not save it, and the decisions relied on by the respondent were factually distinguishable. (¶ 12)
- The High Court's status quo order, passed on the basis of counsel's representation without formulating any substantial question of law and while some respondents remained unserved, and later extended, was contrary to Section 100 CPC. (¶ 11)
Result
Appeal allowed; the High Court's interim order dated 20.09.2024 in the second appeal set aside; no order as to costs; pending applications disposed of.