HC Can’t Grant Ad Interim Relief Without Formulating Substantial Question Of Law Involved In Second Appeal: Supreme Court
The Apex Court was considering a Civil Appeal challenging an interim order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court passed in a Second Appeal.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court cannot grant ad interim relief without formulating the substantial question of law involved in the second appeal.
The Apex Court was considering a Civil Appeal challenging an interim order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court passed in a Second Appeal.
The Division Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan asserted, “Thus, the law is clear that a second appeal will be maintainable before the High Court, only if it is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. If no substantial question of law arises, the second appeal could not have been entertained and the same ought to have been dismissed, as the jurisdiction of the High Court itself is not yet invoked.”
AOR Nishanth Patil represented the Appellants while Senior Advocate Purvish J Malkin represented the Respondents.
Factual Background
The defendants, in this case, are members of the Gazetted Officers Cooperative House Building Society, which was registered in 1966 with the purpose of purchasing and making constructions on lands in Mangalam Village, Tirupati. The suit-scheduled property was purchased by the Society through a sale deed from one M.Savithramma. The original pattadar of the suit scheduled property was one Kannavaram Lokanadham, who sold the same to M.Savithramma. While so, the Government issued a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act seeking to acquire the lands of the Society.
Aggrieved by the same, the Society approached the High Court by filing a writ petition which was allowed and the acquisition notification was set aside. Thereafter, the Respondent No.1/plaintiff approached the Tahsildar for mutation of the revenue records in respect of the land in question and the same was done ex parte. On the basis of the same, the Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants.
The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. However, the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal suit and set aside the judgment and decree. In the second appeal, the High Court granted interim relief in the form of status quo, without formulating any substantial question of law and the said interim relief was further extended. Aggrieved thereby, the legal heirs of Defendant No.5 4 and Defendant Nos.1,3, and 6 approached the Apex Court.
Arguments
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.
On the contrary, it was the case of the respondents that the Code does not provide for any provision for protection of the subject matter of proceedings, when an Appeal under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC is preferred, and the substantive question of law remains to be framed yet, the inherent power of the Court under Section 151 CPC can be invoked in the interregnum to protect the subject matter.
Reasoning
The Bench explained that as per Section 100, a High Court can proceed to hear a Second Appeal only if the case involves a substantial question of law, implying that when the appeal is taken up for admission, it must satisfy itself that a substantial question of law is involved. Thereafter, the High Court must frame such question and direct the parties to submit their arguments on such question.
Refereeing to a catena of judgments including Hemavathi & others v. V.Hombegowda and another (2023), the Bench opined that the scheme of the Code also enables the High Court to hear the parties on any other substantial question of law, not framed by it at the first hearing, but during hearing for the reasons to be recorded. Again, if the court is not satisfied at the first hearing that the case does not involve a substantial question of law, it cannot proceed further. Once such an additional question of law is framed during the hearing, the parties must be given an opportunity to submit their arguments on the other substantial question of law(s).
The Bench also took cognizance of the fact that in some High Courts, there is a practice to order Notice of Motion, whereby even before an appeal is admitted, an opportunity is granted to the respondents therein to contest the case. The Bench said, “In such cases, though the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 151 of CPC is generally empowered to grant interim orders to preserve the subject matter of the dispute and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, we are of the opinion, the court cannot grant any interim protection to the appellant unless the substantial question of law is framed under Section 100 (4) or as per the Proviso. On the other hand, if the High Court is prima facie of the view that the substantial question of law involved would not require much time for disposal, the court is bound to frame the substantial question of law at the stage of admission and then order short notice.”
Coming to the facts of the case the Bench held that the High Court could not have passed the interim order without satisfying itself of the existence of a substantial question of law, as mandated under Section 100 CPC. “Indisputably, the High Court has jurisdiction to pass an interim order ex parte, however, it does not empower to grant ad interim relief, without examining the parties and formulating the substantial question of law involved in the second appeal as it is contrary to section 100 CPC”, it further held.
Thus, setting aside the interim order of the High Court, the Bench allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: U. Sudheera v. C. Yashoda (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 80)
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR Nishanth Patil, Advocates MV Mukunda, Nishanth Patil
Respondents: Senior Advocate Mr. Purvish J Malkin, Sr. Adv. M/S. M. Rambabu And Co., AOR Mr. Mullapudi Rambabu, Adv.