No Leave, No Interim Orders: Supreme Court Settles Courts' Power in Section 92 CPC Trust Suits

Case at a glance: Resolving a split among High Courts, the Supreme Court has held that a civil court seized of a Section 92 CPC plaint and an application for leave cannot pass protective or preservatory interim orders, such as appointing a receiver or committee, while the leave application is pending. Where there is compelling urgency, recorded in writing, the court may dispense with notice before deciding leave and act with utmost caution.

The appellants filed a Section 92 suit concerning People's Education Trust. On 2 May 2025, the Principal District Judge, Mandya, acting under Order XL Rule 1 CPC, constituted an ad hoc committee of existing trustees to manage the trust's day-to-day affairs while the leave application was pending. The Karnataka High Court set that order aside on 25 June 2025, holding that a Section 92 suit is stillborn without leave and the court has no jurisdiction to pass interlocutory orders before leave.

The Court noted that the Allahabad, Bombay, Kerala and Madras High Courts had recognised a protective jurisdiction before leave, while the Orissa and Karnataka High Courts had excluded it. The appellants relied on Section 94, Order XL Rule 1, Section 151 and Section 141 CPC; the respondents argued that leave is a threshold requirement and that no lis exists before it is granted.

The Key Question Before the Court

Can a civil court pass interim orders, including appointing a receiver, before granting leave under Section 92 CPC?

Leave as the Gateway

The Court traced how a suit is instituted under Section 26 and Order IV, and how Section 92 permits suits by persons “having obtained” the leave of the court, which the 1976 amendment made mandatory. Describing Section 92 as both a “protective shield” and a “remedial sword”, it held that leave is a threshold but essential step; interlocutory orders follow only after leave. Section 94 and Order XL Rule 1 presuppose an underlying proceeding, and without leave there is no lis. Section 141 extends only procedure, not substantive rights, and inherent power under Section 151 cannot override a special provision or create jurisdiction that does not exist.

The Court stressed that appointing a receiver over a public trust is intrusive, dislodges management and would defeat the purpose of leave; such relief cannot be dressed up as merely preservatory. The court's role at this stage is that of a gatekeeper. Muhammad Ali Khan (Allahabad Full Bench) was distinguished as concerning a private trust. For genuine urgency, the court may dispense with notice before leave and consider ex parte measures with utmost caution, and an ex parte grant of leave is not automatically invalid.

What the Court Actually Held

• A civil court seized of a Section 92 plaint and leave application cannot pass protective or preservatory interim orders pending the leave decision.
• Section 94, Order XL Rule 1, Section 141 and Section 151 CPC do not supply that power before leave.
• For compelling reasons recorded in writing, notice before leave may be dispensed with.
• The appeals were dismissed, upholding the Karnataka High Court.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It resolves a long-standing conflict between High Courts.
• It protects trust management from intrusive orders before the threshold of leave is crossed.
• It shows litigants the route for urgent cases: seek prompt, even ex parte, leave.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For Plaintiffs

• Press the leave application first and seek urgent hearing, with reasons for dispensing with notice.
• Do not seek a receiver or committee before leave is granted.

For Trustees

• Object to any interim order sought before leave.
• Remember that an ex parte grant of leave can be challenged by seeking revocation.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

No. The Court held there is no power to pass protective or preservatory interim orders pending the leave application.

For compelling reasons recorded in writing, the court may dispense with notice before deciding leave and act with utmost caution.

The views of the Allahabad, Bombay, Kerala and Madras High Courts recognising a pre-leave protective jurisdiction did not prevail.

Conclusion

Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →