Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Partition Suit – Plaint alleged joint Hindu family possession over agricultural land; father of plaintiff allegedly sold suit property through registered sale deeds in 1998–1999 during plaintiff's minority without his knowledge — Defendants/petitioners filed application to reject plaint contending no pre-existing right, suit barred by limitation and improper court fee — Trial court dismissed application holding all points to be mixed questions of law and fact — Held: Trial court rightly dismissed the application; no perversity or illegality warranting interference under Article 227 [Paras 11, 22, 24–25].

Hindu Law – Ancestral and Self-Acquired Property – Nature of Property After Partition – Whether share received by father Janga Reddy on partition of grandfather's property was self-acquired or remained coparcenary property in his hands vis-à-vis his sons — Whether plaintiff, being born after or before the partition, acquired a right by birth — Held: These are disputed mixed questions of law and fact; whether property was sold by Janga Reddy as Karta of HUF or as absolute owner and the sanctity of the sale deeds can only be determined after appreciation of evidence at trial [Paras 14.1, 14.2, 15.1–15.5, 19, 22].

Limitation – Mixed Question of Law and Fact – Plea that suit for cancellation of sale deeds executed in 1998–1999 is barred by limitation — Held: Unless the bar of limitation is patently and unequivocally clear from the plaint, it cannot form a ground under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; point of limitation is a mixed question to be decided after full trial [Paras 11, 17.2].

Court Fees – Deficiency – Plaint valued under Section 34(2) of the AP Court Fees Act — Held: Plaint cannot be rejected on the ground of deficiency in valuation of court fees [Para 17.1].

Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Scope – Held: Power of the High Court under Article 227 is to be sparingly exercised only where errors are apparent on the face of record or where the inferior court has exercised jurisdiction in a perverse manner; no such case made out [Para 23].

Decision: CRP No. 3407 of 2023 dismissed without costs — Interim orders and miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

Criminal Law – Bail – Parity – Armed Robbery – Accused No. 2 charged in connection with robbery at a co-operative society – Role attributed to petitioner as per Column No. 17 of charge sheet limited to standing guard in front of the society to prevent public from entering, purchasing a gunny bag, and collecting ornaments after the robbery – Actual robbery and threatening of witnesses at gunpoint attributed to other accused – Accused No. 1, the alleged mastermind, and Accused No. 3, who showed gun to witnesses, already granted bail by coordinate Bench – Accused No. 9 absconding – Held: On ground of parity, when persons with more serious roles have been granted bail, petitioner is entitled to bail – Petition allowed subject to conditions [Paras 4–7].

Bail Conditions – Flight Risk – Petitioner a resident of Maharashtra – Prosecution apprehended non-appearance – Court directed three sureties comprising one cash surety of Rs. 1,00,000/-, one local surety, and one regular surety to meet apprehension of prosecution – Conditions imposed include non-threatening of witnesses, regular court attendance, not leaving jurisdiction of Maharashtra and Karnataka without prior permission, and non-indulgence in criminal activities [Paras 8–10].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Bail granted subject to conditions – Liberty to prosecution to seek cancellation of bail upon violation of any condition.

Matrimonial Law - Hindu Marriage Act 1955 - Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) - Dissolution of marriage - Cruelty and Desertion - Husband alleged wife ill-treated his mother, humiliated him for his appearance, and neglected household duties - Wife alleged physical assault and dowry harassment - Parties living separately since 2011 - Held - Sustained bitterness and multiple criminal litigations indicate a complete breakdown of marriage - Family Court order dissolving marriage confirmed - [Paras 5-13 and 44-50]

Hindu Marriage Act 1955 - Section 9 - Restitution of conjugal rights - Wife sought to join husband despite filing Section 498A IPC cases - Held - Given the gravity of allegations and 15-year separation, no possibility of reunion exists - Petition for restitution rightly dismissed - [Paras 33-47]

Hindu Marriage Act 1955 - Section 15 - Remarriage during pendency of appeal - Husband remarried one day after the decree of divorce - Held - Remarriage contracted before the expiry of the limitation for filing an appeal has no validity in law - However, as per settled law, such invalidity does not affect the core of the divorce decree if otherwise sustainable - [Paras 27-28 and 34-38]

Hindu Marriage Act 1955 - Section 25 - Permanent Alimony - Maintenance - Husband previously agreed to pay Rs.1.33 Crores in Lok Adalat settlement but failed to discharge full amount alleging wife’s non-cooperation - Wife suffering from cancer and residing with parents - Held - Regardless of breach of compromise terms, the wife is entitled to the agreed amount of Rs.1.33 Crores as full and final settlement for alimony and maintenance - Respondent directed to pay the amount within three months - [Paras 19-21 and 47-50]

Matrimonial Law - Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage - Role of Courts - Held - While irretrievable breakdown is not a statutory ground for divorce under HMA for High Courts, it is a relevant factor to be considered while deciding petitions on grounds of cruelty and desertion - Long separation and lack of possibility of reunion justify the dissolution of marriage - [Paras 29-33 and 46]

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Order of dissolution of marriage and dismissal of restitution of conjugal rights affirmed – Respondent-husband directed to pay Rs.1,33,00,000/- to the Appellant-wife within three months.

Tenancy – Declaration – Burden of Proof – Primary Onus on Plaintiff – In a suit for declaration of tenancy, the burden of proving tenancy lies squarely upon the person claiming to be a tenant — Respondent/plaintiff produced no rent receipts and no tenancy agreement and admitted having taken no action for 30 years regarding alleged non-issuance of rent receipts — Held: Failure to discharge this primary burden is fatal to the plaintiff's case [Paras 12–13, 22].

Tenancy – Long Possession – Permissive Possession – Long standing possession or permissive long possession does not by itself establish that a person is a tenant — Appellate Court erred in treating continuity of possession during gaps between nokar-namas as casting doubt on the respondent's status as a gardener — Such consideration was extraneous and irrelevant to the core question of proof of tenancy [Paras 14, 17–20].

Nokar-namas – Salary Receipts – Unilateral Documents – Evidentiary Value – 116 salary/payment receipts produced by the petitioner showed payments made to the respondent at Rs.50/- per month, later increased to Rs.100/-, indicating salary and not rent — Receipts signed by the respondent/plaintiff cannot be rent receipts, as rent receipts must be signed by the landlord — Even assuming nokar-namas were unilateral and not signed by the petitioner, they indicate the respondent accepting his status as a gardener, disentitling him from claiming tenancy [Paras 15–16].

Appellate Court – Perverse Reasoning – Illegal Onus – The Appellate Court's reasoning that once the petitioner/defendant's case based on nokar-namas and payment receipts was found doubtful, the plaintiff's positive contention of tenancy must be accepted, is perverse — This amounts to placing an illegal burden on the defendant to disprove tenancy rather than requiring the plaintiff to prove it — Such reasoning, if sustained, would cause miscarriage of justice [Paras 22–23].

Decision: Petition allowed — Impugned judgment and decree dated 07.10.2013 quashed and set aside — Civil Appeal No. 65 of 2012 dismissed — Judgment and decree dated 02.01.2012 of the Trial Court dismissing the suit confirmed.

Motor Accident – Negligence – Truck Parked on Highway at Night Without Indicator or Warning Signal – Sections 122 and 126 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Deceased was proceeding on his scooter at about 7:30 p.m. and dashed against the rear of a truck parked partly on the road with its remaining portion off the roadside, without any indicator, parking signal or obstruction — FIR, panchnama and charge-sheet corroborated the version of the claimants — pillion rider Savitaben was an eyewitness and deposed to the manner of parking — Insurance Company did not examine the driver to rebut the version of claimants — Tribunal attributed 30% contributory negligence to the deceased — Held: Driver of the truck was solely negligent in causing the accident; parking of a truck on a highway during night hours without any indicator, parking signal or obstruction to caution approaching vehicles is in gross violation of Sections 122 and 126 of the Motor Vehicles Act; finding of contributory negligence attributable to the deceased reversed [Paras 9–12].

Motor Accident Compensation – Conventional Heads – Enhancement – Loss of Consortium – All Claimants Entitled – Tribunal awarded Rs. 15,000 each for funeral expenses and loss of estate and Rs. 44,000 for loss of consortium — Accident occurred in 2017 — 10% enhancement applicable in terms of Pranay Sethi — Held: Funeral expenses and loss of estate enhanced to Rs. 18,150 each — All claimants, including widow and two children, entitled to compensation under loss of consortium; Rs. 1,45,200 awarded under loss of consortium in terms of Magma General Insurance — Total compensation enhanced from Rs. 5,96,020 to Rs. 9,25,944 [Paras 13–15].

Decision: First Appeal partly allowed — Contributory negligence of deceased set aside; truck driver held solely negligent — Total compensation enhanced to Rs. 9,25,944 — Additional amount of Rs. 3,29,924 with interest at 9% per annum from date of filing of claim petition till realization directed to be deposited by Insurance Company within six weeks — No order as to costs.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Section 483 - Bail - NDPS Act - Custodial necessity - Petitioner arrayed as an accomplice based on information from co-accused Jawan Singh - No recovery of contraband effected from the petitioner - Co-accused and other similarly placed persons already granted bail by a Coordinate Bench - Investigation complete and charge sheet filed - Held, looking at the period of custody and the fact that further proceedings will take time, the Court deemed it appropriate to grant bail. [Paras 1-9].

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Sections 8 and 21 - Prosecution Procedure - Evidentiary requirements - Recovery of 27.77gm of Heroin from co-accused - Petitioner implicated in the distribution chain based on hearsay from co-accused - Lack of legal evidence - Held, naming a person and forwarding them for trial requires legal evidence; it is not the concern of the police to ignore whether sufficient evidence is available or not. The prosecution's failure to advise against recommending a charge sheet despite deficiency of evidence noted. [Paras 10-11].

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Section 273 - Trial Court Duty - Compensation for groundless prosecution - Corresponding to Section 250 CrPC - Non-application of mind at grass-root level - Held, Trial Courts are required to look into the deficiency of evidence at the stage of framing of charge; if deficiency exists, it warrants the invocation of Section 273 BNSS to award compensation to innocent persons for unnecessary custody and prosecution. [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Application allowed – Petitioner released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties – Copy of the order directed to be sent to ACS Home and DGP Rajasthan for taking action against non-application of mind in investigations.

Service Law – Inter Se Seniority – Direct Recruits vs. Promotees – OAS Group-A (JB) – Odisha Administrative Service (Method of Recruitment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 2011 – Petitioners appointed as direct recruitees to OAS Group-A (JB) against recruitment year 2011 vide notification dated 04.03.2016 – Private Opposite Parties promoted to OAS Group-A (JB) against recruitment year 2015 vide notification dated 17.10.2015 on ad hoc basis, regularised vide notification dated 25.04.2017 – Final gradation list dated 08.03.2019 placed direct recruitees above promotees – Challenged by promotees in W.P.(C) No. 19346 of 2019 – Impugned order dated 15.11.2021 directed promotees to be placed above direct recruitees – Held: Rule 11 of the 2011 Rules, governing inter se seniority within a particular recruitment year, is inapplicable where appointments/promotions are made against different recruitment years – In the absence of a specific rule governing such a situation, the settled principle that seniority cannot be claimed from a date when an incumbent was not borne in the cadre applies – Promotees having joined the cadre ahead of direct recruitees are entitled to seniority over them [Paras 7.4–7.6].

Seniority – Date of Entry into Cadre – Principle – Ad Hoc Promotion – Regularisation – Private Opposite Parties joined OAS Group-A (JB) pursuant to promotion notification dated 17.10.2015, admittedly prior to the appointment of Petitioners vide notification dated 04.03.2016 – Regularisation of ad hoc promotion vide notification dated 25.04.2017 does not efface or displace the date of initial joining in the cadre – Retrospective seniority cannot be granted to an employee from a date when he was not borne in the cadre – Seniority amongst members of the same grade counts from the date of initial entry into the grade – Ratio of Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers' Assn. v. State of Maharashtra (1990) 2 SCC 715 and Jagdish Chandra Pattanaik v. State of Orissa (1998) 4 SCC 456 followed [Paras 4.16–4.18, 7.5–7.6].

Seniority – N.R. Parmar – K. Meghachandra Singh – Prospective Overruling – Applicability – Final gradation list dated 08.03.2019, prepared in terms of N.R. Parmar, was immediately challenged by promotees in W.P.(C) No. 19346 of 2019 and had not attained finality in the eye of law by the time K. Meghachandra Singh was decided on 19.11.2019 – Protection afforded in Para 39 of K. Meghachandra Singh to seniority already fixed based on N.R. Parmar therefore not available to Petitioners – Further held: The ratio of both N.R. Parmar and K. Meghachandra Singh applies equally to seniority disputes between direct recruitees and promotees in the State of Odisha – Impugned order dated 15.11.2021 placing promotees above direct recruitees upheld [Paras 7.7–7.8].

G.A. Department Resolution – Para 6 & 7 – Challenge – W.P.(C) No. 3113 of 2026 seeking to strike down Para 6 & 7 of G.A. & P.G. Department Resolution dated 09.09.2021 – Not entertained – Dismissed [Para 7.9].

Decision: All writ petitions dismissed – W.P.(C) Nos. 36490 and 36470 of 2021 dismissed – W.P.(C) Nos. 25137 of 2022 and 9137 of 2022 disposed of with direction to Opposite Party No. 1 to take consequential action in terms of interim order dated 29.09.2022 and upholding of order dated 15.11.2021 – W.P.(C) No. 3113 of 2026 dismissed – No interference with impugned order dated 15.11.2021.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13(1)(ia) - Cruelty - Standard of Proof - Dissolution of marriage sought on grounds of harassment, suspicion of character, and extra-marital affairs - Appellant-wife failed to provide specific instances, dates, or examine material witnesses such as her parents or paternal uncle to corroborate the claims - Held, cruelty must be specifically pleaded and proved with cogent evidence; vague allegations without proof do not constitute cruelty. [Paras 17-21, 40-42].

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13(1)(ia) - Matrimonial Law - Alleged suicide attempts and physical abuse - Appellant claimed to have attempted suicide twice due to ill-treatment - No medical evidence, hospital records, or testimony from parents who reportedly facilitated treatment were produced - Held, mere trivial irritations or normal wear and tear of matrimonial life, or vague allegations without proof, cannot constitute cruelty. [Paras 28-30, 41].

Family Courts Act, Section 7(a) - New ground in appeal - Void Marriage - Minority at the time of marriage - Appellant argued during the appeal that the marriage was void due to her being a minor at the time of solemnization - Petition before the Family Court was filed only for dissolution on the ground of cruelty - Held, a ground for declaring a marriage as a nullity cannot be raised for the first time in appeal without specific pleadings and a petition for the same before the trial court. [Para 34].

Decision: Family Court Appeal dismissed – Order dated 30.01.2018 in O.P. No. 1542 of 2005 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad is confirmed – No order as to costs.

Criminal Procedure – Absconding Accused – Non-Bailable Warrant – Proclamation – Attachment – BNSS – Procedure Restated – Applicant released on bail in Sessions trial for offences under Sections 307 and 504 IPC – Charges framed on 14.02.2024 in his presence – Applicant absent without exemption application from 12.08.2024 – NBW issued on 18.10.2024 – Recalled on 13.09.2024 upon furnishing personal bond – Applicant again absent from 18.10.2024 – NBW issued and continued for 29 dates – Proclamation issued under Section 82 Cr.P.C. on 03.11.2025 – Applicant failed to appear on six dates – Order of attachment under Section 83 Cr.P.C. passed on 24.12.2025 – Application under Section 528 BNSS filed on 17.02.2026 – Held: Impugned NBW order kept in abeyance for two months; trial court at liberty to pass appropriate orders thereafter [Paras 3-9, 105].

Trial in Absentia – Section 356 BNSS – Landmark Provision – New Law – Section 356 of BNSS introduces trial in absentia for proclaimed offenders – Where a proclaimed offender absconds to evade trial and there is no immediate prospect of arrest, such conduct is deemed a waiver of the right to be present and tried in person – Court may proceed with trial in like manner and with like effect as if accused was present and pronounce judgment – Conditions precedent: (i) two consecutive warrants with 30-day interval; (ii) publication in national/local newspaper with 30-day appearance window; (iii) information to relatives or friends; (iv) affixation at residence and local police station – Trial cannot commence until 90 days from framing of charge – State to provide advocate at its expense if accused unrepresented – No appeal lies against conviction after three years from judgment; appeal maintainable only if accused surrenders before appellate court – Depositions may be recorded by audio-video electronic means [Paras 62-66].

Absconding Accused – Four Stages – Statutory Procedure – Court delineated four stages at which an accused may abscond and prescribed the corresponding statutory procedure under BNSS for completion of investigation, inquiry and trial at each stage: (i) absconding during investigation; (ii) on bail during investigation or with arrest stayed; (iii) on bail after summoning; (iv) on bail after framing of charge – At each stage, procedure under Sections 75, 84, 85, 92, 193, 209 BNS, 210, 227, 230, 231, 232, 251, 263, 269, 335, 356, 362 BNSS and Rules 215-216 U.P. Police Regulations must be strictly followed – Amicus curiae to be appointed under Section 356(3) BNSS for defence of absconded accused at every stage [Paras 13, 61-65].

Speedy Trial – BNSS Timelines – Accountability – BNSS fixes strict timelines (Lakshman Rekha) at every stage of criminal proceedings – Preliminary enquiry: 14 days; supply of documents to accused: 14 days; committal proceedings: 90 days (extendable to 180 days); framing of charge: 60 days from first hearing; rape trial completion: 2 months from chargesheet; judgment: 30 days (extendable to 45 days); upload of judgment: 7 days – Non-compliance by Investigating Officer may attract Section 199 BNS (corresponding Section 166-A IPC) and Section 29 Police Act, 1861 – Court clerks and dealing assistants responsible for process compliance – Public Prosecutors accountable under Section 20 BNSS – Presiding Officers adjourning without cogent reason liable to departmental action [Paras 82-83, 87-100].

Section 356 BNSS vs. Section 299 Cr.P.C. – Recording of Evidence in Absence – Applicability – Section 335 BNSS (corresponding Section 299 Cr.P.C.) enables recording of prosecution evidence in absence of absconded accused where no immediate prospect of arrest exists – Such depositions admissible against accused upon arrest if deponent is dead, incapable, or untraceable – Must be preceded by appointment of amicus curiae under Section 356(3) BNSS and expiry of 90 days from framing of charge – Evidence to be recorded preferably through audio-video electronic means [Paras 59-60, 76].

Bail Bond – Forfeiture – Cancellation – Sureties – BNSS Procedure – Upon declaration as proclaimed offender, bail bond to be forfeited under Section 491 BNSS (corresponding Section 446 Cr.P.C.) – Court to call upon accused and sureties to pay penalty or show cause – Penalty recoverable as fine; default may lead to civil imprisonment up to six months – Section 492 BNSS (corresponding Section 446-A Cr.P.C.) mandates cancellation of bail bond and surety bonds upon breach; subsequent release only on fresh bond with adequate sureties – Court or police to inform other courts of bail cancellation where other criminal cases of absconded accused are pending [Paras 43-47, 72-74].

BNSS – Applicability to Pending Cases – Beneficial Procedure – Although BNSS came into force on 01.07.2024 and alleged offence predates it, the more beneficial procedure must be applied – Relied upon: Division Bench in Deepu and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., (2024) 8 ILRA 903 – Proceedings cognizance of which is taken on or after 01.07.2024 and all subsequent stages including inquiry, trial and appeal to be conducted as per BNSS [Para 84].

Decision: Application disposed of – Impugned NBW order dated 18.10.2024 kept in abeyance for two months – Trial court at liberty to pass appropriate orders if accused fails to cooperate at any stage of trial including framing of charge, recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS and pronouncement of judgment – Comprehensive directions issued to Director General of Police, Director of Prosecution, District Judge, Registrar General, Government Advocate, Chief Secretary, and all district authorities for circulation and compliance of this order within 60 days [Paras 101-105].