S. Panchalingu & Ors. v. People’s Education Trust (R) & Others

Supreme Court of India   •   18 September 2026   •   2026 INSC 1010
Case Summary
A civil court cannot pass protective or preservatory interim orders in a proposed suit under Section 92 CPC before granting leave to institute the suit. Leave is a mandatory condition precedent; however, where urgency is shown, the court may grant leave ex parte by recording reasons and thereafter consider interim relief.
Coram: Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan
Area of Law: Civil Procedure / Trust Law — Section 92 CPC, Prior Leave, Interim Relief, Receiver & Public Charitable Trusts
Citation: 2026 INSC 1010
Date: 18 September 2026

Legal Issue

Whether a civil court, before granting leave under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may pass protective or preservatory interim orders, including appointment of a receiver under Order XL Rule 1 CPC.

Brief Facts

The appellants instituted proceedings concerning the management of People’s Education Trust, a public trust, along with an application seeking leave under Section 92 CPC.

Pending consideration of leave, the trial court constituted an ad hoc committee of trustees under Order XL Rule 1(a) CPC to manage the Trust’s day-to-day affairs.

The Karnataka High Court set aside that order, holding that a suit under Section 92 CPC is not instituted until leave is granted and that interim orders cannot be passed at the pre-leave stage. The Supreme Court considered conflicting High Court views on the question.

Held / Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the view that leave under Section 92 CPC is mandatory before a suit is instituted.

Until leave is granted, there is no validly instituted suit or pending lis in which interlocutory or supplemental relief can be granted. Accordingly, a court cannot appoint a receiver, issue an injunction or pass other protective orders while the leave application remains pending.

Section 151 CPC cannot be invoked to override the statutory safeguard under Section 92 CPC. Similarly, Section 94 CPC and Order XL Rule 1 CPC presuppose an underlying valid proceeding.

However, where compelling urgency exists, the court may dispense with prior notice and grant leave ex parte by recording cogent reasons. Interim relief may then be considered in the instituted suit.

Important Observations

1. Leave is a condition precedent. A suit concerning a public charitable or religious trust under Section 92 CPC comes into existence only after leave is granted.

2. No interim relief before leave. Protective, preservatory or supplemental orders cannot be passed when the leave application itself is pending.

3. Section 151 cannot defeat Section 92. The inherent power of the court cannot be exercised in conflict with an express statutory requirement.

4. Receiver appointment is intrusive. Appointment of a receiver affects management of a public trust and cannot be treated as a merely procedural measure.

5. Urgent ex parte leave is permissible. Prior notice is ordinarily required, but may be dispensed with in compelling cases if reasons are recorded in writing.

6. Section 92 balances two interests. The provision enables action against mismanagement of public trusts while protecting trusts from vexatious litigation.

Full Headnote

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Sections 92, 94, 141 and 151 — Order XL Rule 1 — Public Charitable and Religious Trusts — Leave to Institute Suit — Condition Precedent — Interim Relief — Appointment of Receiver

The Supreme Court held that leave under Section 92 CPC is a mandatory pre-condition for institution of a suit concerning a public charitable or religious trust. Until such leave is granted, no suit or lis comes into existence and the civil court lacks jurisdiction to entertain interlocutory or supplemental applications.

Consequently, protective or preservatory orders, including appointment of a receiver under Order XL Rule 1 CPC, cannot be passed during pendency of an application for leave under Section 92.

Section 94 CPC and Order XL Rule 1 CPC presuppose a valid underlying proceeding. The inherent power preserved by Section 151 CPC cannot be invoked to bypass the specific statutory safeguard in Section 92. Section 141 CPC, being procedural in operation, cannot alter the substantive condition of prior leave.

Where compelling urgency is established, the court may dispense with notice to the proposed defendants and grant leave ex parte, after recording cogent reasons. Upon grant of leave, the court may consider interim relief in accordance with law.

Appeals dismissed.

Legal Significance

The judgment clarifies the procedural threshold for public-trust litigation under Section 92 CPC. It prevents courts from granting interim control or protective relief before the statutory leave requirement has been satisfied, while preserving a carefully reasoned ex parte leave mechanism for genuinely urgent cases. The ruling also emphasizes that receiver appointments materially affect trust administration and require an underlying valid proceeding.

View Original Judgment
Disclaimer: This case summary and headnote are provided for informational and educational purposes. Readers should refer to the original judgment for the complete text and authoritative legal position.