Supreme Court: a court can't pass interim orders in a public-trust suit under Section 92 CPC until leave is granted

The Supreme Court resolved a conflict among High Courts on a question of civil procedure. The question was whether a civil court, seized of a plaint under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 along with an application for leave to sue, can pass protective or preservatory interim orders before deciding that application. Section 92 governs suits about public charitable or religious trusts and requires the court's leave before such a suit can be instituted. The High Courts of Allahabad, Bombay, Kerala and Madras had recognised a protective jurisdiction pending leave, while Orissa and Karnataka had denied it.

In this case, a Mandya court had appointed an ad hoc committee of existing trustees to run the People's Education Trust, relying on its powers to appoint a receiver under Order XL and its inherent powers. The Karnataka High Court set that order aside. Upholding the High Court, the Supreme Court held that the civil court has no power to pass such interim orders while the leave application is pending. It explained that Section 92 acts both as a 'protective shield' for public charities and as a 'remedial sword'.

To meet urgency, the Court clarified that notice before granting leave, though ordinarily required, may be dispensed with for compelling reasons recorded in writing. Leave granted without notice does not make the suit bad in law, and defendants can seek its revocation.