The appellants challenged a Karnataka High Court ruling that a Civil Court has no jurisdiction to pass interim/protective orders in a suit filed under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, while the application for leave to institute such a suit is still pending. The Karnataka High Court had set aside an order of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, which had constituted an ad hoc committee of trustees to manage People's Education Trust pendente lite, holding that a Section 92 suit is 'stillborn' without leave and the court is therefore denuded of jurisdiction to grant interlocutory relief. The Supreme Court framed the substantial question of law as whether a Civil Court seized of a Section 92 plaint and a pending leave application possesses the power to pass protective or preservatory interim orders during that pendency. The appellants argued, relying on Section 94 read with Order XL Rule 1, Section 141, Section 151 of the CPC, and several High Court precedents, that the court retains inherent and statutory power to appoint a receiver or pass protective orders to prevent waste or damage to trust property even before leave is granted. The judgment as provided sets out the competing arguments and the conflict among High Courts but does not record a final operative conclusion within the extracted text.