Leave Under Section 92 CPC Is the Very Soul of a Scheme Suit: Karnataka High Court Declares Interim Orders Forming Ad Hoc Committee Without Leave as Non Est

“A plaint under Section 92 CPC is a legal stillbirth unless the Court grants it life by leave — no jurisdiction arises, no relief flows, and all orders passed in such a vacuum are void ab initio.” — Justice M. Nagaprasanna. District Court Cannot Bypass Mandatory Leave Requirement by Citing Urgency or Summer Vacation, Rules High Court.

Karnataka High Court holding that a scheme suit filed under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, cannot be deemed instituted unless leave of the Court is first obtained. The Court quashed the District Court’s orders dated 02-05-2025 and 11-06-2025, which had constituted an ad hoc committee to govern the People’s Education Trust, terming them non est and passed without jurisdiction.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna emphasized that leave is not a formality or a technical hurdle but a jurisdictional prerequisite. Without it, even a plaint remains inert and lifeless.

“Jurisdiction Cannot Be Assumed on the Basis of Imminent Vacation” — Court Rejects Logic of Urgency Over Statutory Compliance

The writ proceedings arose out of a suit filed under Section 92 CPC alleging mismanagement of the People’s Education Trust, Mandya. The plaintiffs had moved for interim reliefs, including restraining current trustees and forming a committee, even before the court had granted leave to sue — a statutory necessity under Section 92 CPC.

Despite the application for leave being pending, the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, constituted an ad hoc committee by an interim order dated 02-05-2025, citing the urgency posed by the approaching summer vacation and the need to preserve institutional functioning.

Justice Nagaprasanna sternly rebuked the rationale, holding:

"It is ununderstandable as to how an ensuing summer vacation can become an emergent circumstance to pass an order giving a plethora of directions for formation of a committee... Such orders rest upon a slender reed of exigency, not the strong beam of statutory power."

Suit Under Section 92 CPC Has No Legal Existence Until Leave Is Granted — All Interlocutory Orders Null and Void

The Court clarified that a scheme suit under Section 92 CPC becomes a “suit” only after the Court grants leave. Until such leave is granted, the Court has no jurisdiction whatsoever to issue any directions, including interlocutory orders under Order 39 or Order 40 CPC.

The Court observed: "The mandate of Section 92 is jurisdictional. A plaint filed without leave is not a suit — it is stillborn. Without breathing life into it through leave, no power to pass orders arises."

Referring to its earlier coordinate bench judgment in W.P. No. 9267 of 2022, the Court held that even in cases of emergent relief, courts cannot override the jurisdictional bar of Section 92 CPC. The order forming the ad hoc committee and subsequent orders were declared non est.

“Supreme Court’s Bhupinder Singh Decision Does Not Permit Interim Orders Without Leave” — Misplaced Reliance Set Aside

The petitioners relied on Bhupinder Singh v. Joginder Singh, (2022), arguing that in emergent circumstances, courts can act without granting leave. The High Court clarified the correct interpretation:

"The Supreme Court recognizes that leave may be granted ex parte in urgent matters — but it does not permit courts to skip the step entirely. Leave must still be granted; the Court cannot pass interlocutory orders in its absence."

The petitioners also cited rulings from the Kerala and Allahabad High Courts, but the Karnataka High Court rejected their applicability:

"Judgments of other High Courts are persuasive at best and cannot override the binding nature of a coordinate bench of this Court."

Order 40 Rule 1 CPC Cannot Override Section 92 — Receiver Can Be Appointed Only in a Validly Instituted Suit

Addressing the petitioners’ claim that the Court could have invoked Order 40 Rule 1 CPC to appoint a receiver or committee, the Court responded:

"For an application under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC, what is sine qua non is institution of a suit. A scheme suit without leave is not a suit — it is an inert plaint. Order 40 cannot resuscitate a plaint that never legally existed."

The Court reiterated that a validly instituted suit is the foundation for any interim relief — not urgency, not expediency, and certainly not judicial creativity in the face of vacation.

Conclusion: “Law Does Not Yield to Convenience” — Karnataka High Court Upholds Sanctity of Section 92 CPC

Summing up the judgment, Justice Nagaprasanna observed:

"Section 92 CPC is not merely procedural — it is a statutory bulwark designed to shield public charitable and religious trusts from unrestrained litigation. Leave under Section 92 is the gateway to jurisdiction; any attempt to pass orders before walking through that gate is illegal."

In result:

• W.P. No. 17445 of 2025 was allowed, quashing the orders dated 02-05-2025 and 11-06-2025;

• W.P. Nos. 16971 and 16223 of 2025 were dismissed;

• Liberty was granted to the District Court to proceed afresh only after validly instituting the suit by granting leave.

This decision now stands as a foundational reaffirmation of the jurisdictional sanctity embedded in Section 92 CPC, reminding all civil courts that law cannot be side-stepped in the name of institutional urgency or convenience.

Date of Decision: 25 June 2025