Raghavendra Swamy Mutt v. Uttaradi Mutt
Background
Uttaradi Mutt had sued Raghavendra Swamy Mutt for an injunction protecting its possession of certain property and its right to perform religious rites ("Aradhana"); the trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court partly allowed the appeal in Uttaradi Mutt's favour. When Raghavendra Swamy Mutt filed a second appeal in the Karnataka High Court and sought a temporary injunction, the High Court initially granted an ex parte interim order without first formulating the mandatory "substantial question of law" required under Section 100 CPC, but a Single Judge later vacated that interim order. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt appealed to the Supreme Court against this vacation of its interim protection.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that under Order XLI Rule 5 read with Order XLII Rule 2 of the CPC, a High Court admitting a second appeal must first formulate the substantial question of law before granting any interim stay or relief: it cannot defer that formulation and simply grant an ex parte interim order indefinitely. Since the High Court had initially done exactly that (granting interim relief without formulating the question of law), the Single Judge was right to correct the error by vacating the earlier interim order, and that correction was "absolutely impregnable." The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as without substance, while separately requesting the High Court to take up the second appeal for admission and decide afresh whether a substantial question of law exists, clarifying that its own earlier interim order was not an expression of opinion on the merits.
Lesson Learnt
An interim injunction granted in a second appeal before the High Court has even formally admitted the case (by framing the required legal question) is procedurally irregular and can be vacated: litigants should not treat an early, informal stay order as a settled or permanent right.