Supreme Court of India· 18 September 2026

Can notice to proposed defendants prior to grant of leave under Section 92 of the Code be dispensed with where facts disclose the necessity of urgent relief?

S.PANCHALINGU & ORS v. PEOPLE’S EDUCATION TRUST (R)

2026 INSC 1010
Coram: Justice Manoj Misra · Justice Manmohan

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow s.92 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

Notice to proposed defendants prior to grant of leave under Section 92 can be dispensed with where facts disclose the necessity of urgent relief.

Yes. Notice to proposed defendants prior to grant of leave under Section 92 can be dispensed with where facts disclose the necessity of urgent relief, though courts must exercise utmost care, caution and circumspection in granting leave ex parte. A suit instituted pursuant to leave granted without notice is not, on that account, rendered bad in law or non-maintainable, and the defendants remain entitled to seek revocation of leave.

Headnote

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s.92 — s.94 — s.141 — s.151 — Order XL Rule 1 — Suits against Public Charities — Leave of Court — Interim orders — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s.92 — Interim orders pending leave — Held: A Civil Court seized of a leave application under Section 92 is not empowered to pass protective or preservatory interim orders pending its disposal. Appointing a receiver at that stage is intrusive, not preservatory, and defeats the purpose of the leave requirement. (¶53, 60) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s.92 — Leave as pre-condition — Held further: A suit against a public charity instituted without the leave of the Court required by Section 92 is not maintainable. Leave is peremptory and non-derogable, and until it is granted there is no lis before the Court. (¶31, 43) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s.141 — s.92 — Procedural v substantive rights — Held further: Section 141 of the Code applies only to procedural rights and does not override the substantive safeguards under Section 92. These safeguards affect substantive rights and cannot be overridden by the Court's inherent power under Section 151. (¶42, 47) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s.92 — Notice before grant of leave — Held further: Notice to proposed defendants prior to grant of leave under Section 92 can be dispensed with where facts disclose the necessity of urgent relief. Courts must exercise utmost care, caution and circumspection in granting leave ex parte; appeals dismissed with this clarification. (¶57, 60, 61)

Headnote

You've used your free headnotes this month

The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.

Create my free account

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 57However, this Court is mindful that circumstances may arise necessitating urgent interim measures, including ex parte temporary injunctions, in suits instituted under Section 92 of the Code, to safeguard the property of public charities. While the statutory framework affords a ‘protective shield’ to such institutions, it is the considered view of this Court that, where facts disclose compelling urgency, issuance of notice prior to grant of leave is not indispensable. Nonetheless, Courts must exercise utmost care, caution and circumspection in granting leave ex parte.

Paragraph 58This approach finds support in the pronouncement of this Court in R.M. Narayana Chettiar & Anr. (supra), wherein it was held that, at the stage of considering leave, the Court neither adjudicates upon the merits of the controversy nor confers substantive rights upon the parties. In keeping with the object and language of Section 92, notice to proposed defendants ought ordinarily to precede the grant of leave, save where impracticable. However, a suit instituted pursuant to leave granted without notice is not, on that account, rendered bad in law or non-maintainable. The ex parte grant of leave does not defeat or seriously prejudice any right of the defendants, who remain entitled to seek revocation of leave, which must then be adjudicated on merits and in accordance with law.

Paragraph 60In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court holds that a Civil Court, seized of a plaint under Section 92 of the Code together with an application seeking leave to institute the suit, is not empowered to pass protective or preservatory interim orders pending disposal of the leave application. However, for compelling reasons to be recorded in writing like where facts disclose the necessity of urgent relief, notice prior to the grant of leave may be dispensed with.

Acts & Sections

s.92 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s.94 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s.141 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s.151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Order XL Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of S.PANCHALINGU & ORS v. PEOPLE’S EDUCATION TRUST (R) — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Is a Civil Court seized of a leave application under Section 92 of the Code empowered to pass protective or preservatory interim orders pending its disposal?Is a suit against a public charity instituted without the leave of the Court required by Section 92 of the Code maintainable?Does Section 141 of the Code, which applies only to procedural rights, override the substantive safeguards under Section 92?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections