LexU. SUDHEERA & OTHERS versus C. YASHODA & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 92 : 2025 INSC 80 U. Sudheera & Others v. C. Yashoda & Others (Civil Appeal No. 567 of 2025) 17 January 2025 [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.] 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. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.100 – Second appeal – In second appeal, High Court granted the interim relief directing the parties to maintain status quo, without formulating substantial questions of law as mandated u/s.100 – Challenge to: Held: Interim order passed by the High Court set aside – High Court cannot grant an interim order, without framing substantial question of law as required to be framed u/s.100 – It acquires jurisdiction to deal with the second appeal on merits only when it frames a substantial question of law u/s.100 – If no substantial question of law arises, the second appeal cannot be entertained and ought to be dismissed, as the jurisdiction of the High Court itself is not yet invoked. [Paras 10.2, 10.4] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – ss.100, 151 – Practice in some High Courts to order Notice of Motion, where even before an appeal is admitted, the respondents are granted opportunity to contest the case – High Court in exercise of its power u/s.151, if can grant interim orders: Held: No – High Court cannot grant any interim protection to the appellant, unless the substantial question of law is framed u/s.100(4) or as per the Proviso – Inherent power u/s.151 cannot be used by the High Court in violation of the express mandates in other provisions of the Code. [Para 10.3] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.100 – Second appeal – Jurisdiction of High Court – Discussed. * Author [2025] 2 S.C.R. 93 U. Sudheera & Others v. C. Yashoda & Others Case Law Cited Ram Phal v. Banarasi (2003) 11 SCC 762; Raghavendra Swamy Mutt v. Uttaradi Mutt [2016] 3 SCR 11 : (2016) 11 SCC 235; Bhagyashree Anant Gaonkar v. Narendra @ Nagesh Bharma Holkar (2023) SCC Online SC 1236; Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari [2001] 1 SCR 948 : (2001) 3 SCC 179; Roop Singh v. Ram Singh [2000] 2 SCR 605 : (2000) 3 SCC 708; State Bank of India v. S.N. Goyal [2008] 7 SCR 631 : (2008) 8 SCC 92; Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur v. Punjab SEB [2010] 13 SCR 658 : (2010) 13 SCC 216; Umerkhan v. Bismillabi [2011] 9 SCR 551 : (2011) 9 SCC 684; Hemavathi & Others v. V. Hombegowda and Another, 2023 INSC 848 : [2023] 12 SCR 477 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1206 – relied on. Vareed Jacob v. Sosamma Geeverghese and Ors. [2004] 1 Supp. SCR 534 : (2004) 6 SCC 378; Vrajesh Anandrao Kerkar v. Durgesh Tulsidas Kerkar and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 472 – held inapplicable. Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal [1962] Supp. 1 SCR 450 : AIR 1962 SC 527; Anathula Sudhakar v. P Buchi Reddy [2008] 5 SCR 331 : (2008) 4 SCC 594; Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import & Export Co. [2019] 1 SCR 812 : (2019) 3 SCC 191 – referred to. List of Acts Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. List of Keywords Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Second appeal; Substantial question(s) of law; Substantial question of law not framed; Interim relief/order; Ad interim order/relief; Notice of Motion; Inherent power. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 567 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 20.09.2024 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati in SA No. 518 of 2023 94 [2025] 2 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Appearances for Parties Nishanth Patil, Mv Mukunda, Advs. for the Appellants. Purvish Jitendra Malkhan, Sr. Adv., M. Rambabu, M/s. M. Rambabu & Co., Advs. for the Respondents. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment R. Mahadevan, J. Leave granted. 2. The challenge made in this appeal is to the interim order dated 20.09.2024 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi1 in the Second Appeal bearing No.518/2023. For the sake of clarity and ease of reference, the order impugned herein is reproduced below: “Learned counsel for the respondent No.9 is present. Notice sent to respondent No.8 was served. Therefore, service of respondent No.8 is ‘held sufficient’. Learned counsel for the appellant is permitted to take out steps for filing substitute service against the respondent Nos.4, 6 and 7. It was represented by the learned Senior Counsel for t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.