The Supreme Court of India, comprising Manoj Misra, J. and Manmohan, J., in its judgment dated 18 September 2026, considered whether a Civil Court can grant protective or preservatory interim relief while an application seeking leave to institute a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is still pending. The case arose from proceedings concerning the management of the People’s Education Trust. The appellants had instituted proceedings under Section 92 CPC along with an application seeking leave of the Court. During the pendency of the leave application, the Trial Court appointed an ad hoc committee of existing trustees under Order XL Rule 1(a) CPC to manage the day-to-day affairs of the Trust. The Karnataka High Court subsequently set aside the order, holding that a Section 92 suit remains “stillborn” until leave is granted and that interlocutory jurisdiction cannot be exercised before such leave.

ISSUES OF LAW:

Whether a Civil Court, seized of a plaint filed under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘Code’) alongside an application seeking leave to institute the suit, possesses the power to pass protective or preservatory interim orders (such as appointing a receiver under Order XL Rule 1) during the pendency of the leave application.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

The appellants filed a suit under Section 92 of the Code concerning the management of the People’s Education Trust (Respondent No. 1) along with an application seeking leave of the court. During the pendency of the leave application, the Trial Court (Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mandya) passed an interlocutory order under Order XL Rule 1(a) appointing an ad hoc committee of existing trustees to manage the trust’s day-to-day affairs. On appeal, the Karnataka High Court set aside the Trial Court’s order, reaffirming that a Section 92 suit remains “stillborn” until leave is granted and that the court lacks jurisdiction to pass interlocutory orders before granting leave. The appellants challenged this decision before the Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed that a Civil Court is not empowered to pass protective or preservatory interim orders pending the disposal of a leave application under Section 92 of the Code. The Court reasoned that granting leave under Section 92 is a mandatory precondition (“gateway proceeding”) to instituting a suit against a public trust. Until leave is granted, there is no pending suit or lis before the court; therefore, supplemental proceedings under Section 94, Order XL, or inherent powers under Section 151 cannot be invoked to grant interim relief. To balance protection with urgent necessity, the Court clarified that where compelling urgency exists to safeguard trust property, courts may dispense with prior notice to the defendants and grant leave ex parte with written reasons, after which interim orders can be passed. Defendants retain the right to apply for revocation of such ex parte leave.

LINK TO ACCESS THE JUDGMENT HERE

CASE NAME:

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

COURT NAME:

Supreme Court of India

JUDGES NAME:

Manoj Misra, J. and Manmohan, J. (Judgment authored by Manmohan, J.)

DATE OF JUDGMENT:

September 18, 2026

CITATION | NEUTRAL CITATION:

2026 INSC 1010 | Civil Appeal Nos. [—] of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 25577-25579 of 2025)