U. SUDHEERA & OTHERS V. C. YASHODA & OTHERS 2025 INSC 80
NAME OF THE CASE: U. Sudheera & others V. C. Yashoda & others
CITATION: 2025 INSC 80
COURT: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BENCH: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan.
“No interim relief in a second appeal can be granted unless the High Court first frame a substantial question of law under section 100 of Code of civil procedure 1908”
FACTS / BACKGROUNDS OF THE CASE
There was a dispute related to the property in the village of Mangalam, Tirupati. In consequence of which the suit OS No. 48 of 2011 Filed was filed by the Respondent No.1/ plaintiff for the permanent injunction where the trial court decreed grants permanent injunction in her favor by the judgement dated 05.02.2016. However in First Appeal the Appellate court allowed the appeal suit filed by the appellants/defendants and reversed it and set aside the same by the judgement dated 11.11.2022. Thereafter, the Respondent No.1/plaintiff preferred a second appeal (SA.No. 518 of 2023), before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh wherein such High Court without formulating the substantial question of law ,granted the interim relief in the form of status quo to be maintained by the parties.1 Therefore the same interim order was called in question before the Supreme court of India.
ISSUE
Whether the High Court can grant an interim relief in a second appeal under section 100 of code of civil procedure without formulating a substantial question of law ?
ARMUMENTS
The Appellants contended that without framing substantial question of law, an interim order cannot be passed in a second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It was further submitted that when the fact remains that all the respondents have not been served and the plaintiff has not even sought for declaration of title, the High Court erred in granting the interim relief, on a mere representation.2
On the contrary, Respondent contended that Section 151 ( Savings of inherent powers of court) of Code of Civil Procedure,1908 permits High Court for the issuance of an interim order for the protection of subject matter in emergent situation even before formulation substantial question of law.Respondent also cited the the case of Manohar Lal v. seth Hiralal.
1 U. Sudheera vs C. Yashoda on 17 January, 2025,(Aug. 23,2025), available at
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/48318463
2 HC Can’t Grant Ad Interim Relief Without Formulating Substantial Question Of Law Involved In Second Appeal: Supreme Court ,(Aug.24,2025), available at https://www.verdictum.in
PRECEDENTS & LEGAL PRINCIPLE INVOLVED
Upon the issue arises in this case , the supreme court of India reaffirmed that a High Court’s jurisdiction under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 is strictly conditional it means that the courts has to first fulfill the requisites of framing substantial question of law before granting any relief such as a status quo order and non-fulfillment of this statutory requirements leads to the invalidity of any order so granted under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure,1908.
By relying on its previous judgements or precedents like Ram Phal v. Banarsi(2003)3, Raghendra Swamy Mutt v. Uttaradi Mutt (2006) and Bhagyashree Anant Gaonkar v. Narendra (2023) , Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar, (1999)4the Supreme Court of India emphasized that No interim relief can be granted before a substantial question of law has been framed. In other words. interim measures cannot precede the framing of such a question of law.
In this judgement the court also made clear that the High Court’s inherent powers 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 cannot be used to override the clear requirements of section 100 of the said code.
COURT’S OBSERVATION AND RATIONALE
1. The Supreme court observed that the jurisdiction of high court under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure,1908 only activates after the requisites of framing a substantial question of law is fulfilled. It cannot grant interim relief before fulfilling such conditions.
2. Although section 151 provides inherent power to issue interim orders but it cannot override the procedural mandate of section 100.
3. Additionally, the court observed that all the respondent were not served before passing of such interim order and also the plaintiff had not sought a declaration of title which consequently weakened the High court’s interim order. In reference to this point the court relied on precedents that bare injunction without a declaration of title are not maintainable as held in the case of Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (2008).
DEFECTS
1. The high court had granted interim relief without framing substantial question of law. 2. High court of Andhra Pradesh in this case has failed to serve all the concerned respondent before granting interim relief in the form of status quo.
3. High court of Andhra Pradesh misused the inherent power provided under section 151.
3 Banarsi and others v. Ram Phal on 17 february 2003(Aug. 24, 2025), available at https://indiankanoon.org/ 4 Case note: Sudheera v. C Yashoda (2025) SC (Aug. 24, 2025), available at https://lawnotes.co/
INFERENCE & IMPLICATION
The judgement of this case draw attention that the High Courts must adhere to the mandate of section 100 before assuming its jurisdiction in second appeal.it further underscores and clarified that interim order cannot be given in absence of compliance to the mandates of section 100 because, as doing so compromise the jurisdictional limits and procedural integrity. The Apex court also emphasized that the power given to High court under section 151 cannot be invoked in order to override the requirements which the statute explicitly.
MOHD GALIB
CMP Degree College
(University of Allahabad)