U. SUDHEERA VERSUS C. YASHODA (Supreme Court)

(i) The High Court, without formulating substantial questions of law, cannot grant any interim relief by directing the parties to maintain status quo, till the next date of hearing. The High Court cannot pass any interim order without satisfying itself of the existence of a substantial question of law, as mandated under Section 100 CPC.

(ii) The High Court acquires jurisdiction to deal with the second appeal on merits only when it frames a substantial question of law as required to be framed under Section 100 CPC; and it cannot grant an interim order, without framing substantial question of law.

(iii) 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, 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. The High Court cannot use its inherent power under Section 151 in violation of the express mandates in other provisions of the Code.

(iv) 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.

Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal (1962) referred