LexStreak
Read free →
Supreme Court of India· 18 September 2026

Is a suit against a public charity instituted without the leave of the Court required by Section 92 of the Code maintainable?

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

A suit against a public charity instituted without the leave of the Court required by Section 92 is not maintainable.

No. A suit against a public charity instituted without the leave of the Court required by Section 92 is not maintainable. Leave under Section 92 is peremptory and non-derogable, and until it is granted there is no lis before the Court, so interlocutory applications can be entertained only after leave has been granted.

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 31It bears mention that, by the Amendment Act of 1976, Section 92 was amended to substitute the requirement of the Advocate-General's administrative consent with the mandatory requirement of ‘having obtained leave of the Court’, in the case of suits instituted by two or more persons. The threshold of scrutiny was thereby shifted from the executive to the judiciary. Consequently, the obtaining of leave of the Court is a mandatory pre-condition to the institution of a suit against Public Charities. SECTION 92 IS A SPECIAL PROVISION EMBODYING A DELICATE BALANCING ACT. IT IS BOTH A ‘PROTECTIVE SHIELD’ AND A ‘REMEDIAL SWORD’
Paragraph 43In R.M. Narayana Chettiar & Anr. (supra), this Court held that a suit instituted without leave under Section 92 is not maintainable at all. Leave under Section 92 is thus peremptory and non-derogable and interlocutory applications can be entertained only after leave has been granted.
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?Does Section 141 of the Code, which applies only to procedural rights, override the substantive safeguards under Section 92?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?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections