Civil Law – Appeal – Maintainability – Section 96 CPC – Appeal lies only against a decree and not against mere findings – Defendant in whose favour decree was passed could not maintain a separate appeal only to challenge adverse findings – Proper remedy was filing cross-objection under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC – Appeal filed by defendant against findings of Trial Court held not maintainable – Lower Appellate Court erred in entertaining such appeal and reversing findings [Paras 12–14].

Landlord and Tenant – Eviction – Default in Payment of Rent – Sections 12(1)(a) and 13, M.P. Accommodation Control Act – Tenant failed to deposit rent as determined by Court and remained in default for prolonged period without sufficient cause – Application for condonation of delay filed belatedly and without bona fide explanation – Held: Protection under Section 13(5) not available – Landlord entitled to decree of eviction on ground of default [Paras 23–29].

Professional Use vs. Commercial Activity – Advocate’s Office – Office of an advocate does not constitute a commercial activity when situated in a residential building – Legal profession is a professional activity based on personal skill and intelligence and not trade or commerce – Trial Court committed material illegality in treating advocate’s office as commercial use to deny eviction for residential requirement – Finding answered in negative [Paras 15–17].

Bona Fide Requirement – Residential Purpose – Section 12(1)(e), M.P. Accommodation Control Act – Plaintiff proved genuine residential requirement for study needs of his son – Merely because premises were used as an advocate’s office could not defeat landlord’s bona fide residential need – Trial Court erred in refusing decree despite proof of bona fide requirement [Paras 5, 15–17, 27].

Concurrent Findings – Interference in Second Appeal – Where lower appellate court’s judgment is founded on entertaining a non-maintainable appeal and erroneous legal assumptions, High Court justified in setting aside such judgment under Section 100 CPC – Substantial questions of law answered in favour of appellant [Paras 9–14, 26–30].

Eviction Decree – Execution – Expeditious Disposal – Decree for eviction granted under Sections 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(e) of the Act – Tenant directed to vacate within one month – Executing Court directed to conclude execution proceedings within six months, in line with Supreme Court guidelines [Paras 34–35].

Decision: Second Appeal allowed – Judgments and decrees of Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court set aside – Eviction decree passed in favour of plaintiff – Respondent directed to vacate suit premises within one month.

Bail – Second Bail Application – Murder of Wife by Strangulation – Section 103(1) BNS – Earlier Bail Withdrawn – Second Bail Filed Without Change in Circumstances – Rejection Justified – Applicant sought bail for the second time after having earlier withdrawn the first bail application during trial proceedings – No substantial change in circumstances shown – Held: Filing of second bail application without awaiting outcome of trial not justified [Paras 2–3, 16–17].

Criminal Trial – Hostile Witnesses – Evidentiary Value – Bail Stage Consideration – Complainant (PW-1) and daughter of the deceased (PW-2) turned hostile – Mere hostility of witnesses does not demolish prosecution case – Evidence of hostile witnesses can still be relied upon to the extent it supports prosecution – Reliance placed on State v. Sanjeev Nanda – Held: Turning hostile cannot be a ground for bail where prima facie case subsists [Paras 8–13].

Medical Evidence – Post-Mortem Report – Strangulation vs. Suicide – Horizontal ligature mark around neck with ante-mortem injuries – Presence of contusions on head and chest – Medical evidence rules out suicide by hanging – Strong indication of homicidal strangulation – Held: Defence theory of suicide not supported by medical evidence [Paras 6, 14, 16].

Witness Intimidation – Influence of Accused Even During Incarceration – Adverse Inference at Bail Stage – Videographed statement of minor daughter under Section 161 Cr.P.C. implicated applicant – Subsequent hostile testimony contained contradictions and false claims – Statement of PW-2 indicated pressure from accused father to secure release – Held: Prima facie inference of witness influence sufficient to deny bail [Paras 7, 14–16].

Circumstantial Evidence – False Defence of Theft – Inquest Report Contradicting Witness Version – PW-2 alleged theft of jewellery by intruders – Inquest report recorded jewellery intact on dead body – Defence version found false on face of record – Held: False explanation strengthens prosecution case at bail stage [Paras 10–11, 15].

Conduct of Accused – Abscondence After Incident – Non-Participation in Inquest – Applicant allegedly fled after incident – Not present during inquest proceedings – Conduct considered relevant while deciding bail – Held: Abscondence and conduct weigh against grant of bail [Paras 4–5, 16].

Decision: Second bail application rejected – Trial Court directed to conclude trial expeditiously and independently, without being influenced by observations made in bail order.

Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Maintenance denied – Wife gainfully employed and financially secure – Concealment of income and assets – Abuse of process – Family Court order upheld.

Maintenance – Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Wife’s Independent Income – Entitlement – Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is payable only when wife is unable to maintain herself – Evidence on record showed petitioner gainfully employed, professionally qualified and holding substantial financial assets – Held: Wife having sufficient independent income and means not entitled to maintenance [Paras 9, 12–13].

Concealment of Material Facts – Suppression of Employment and Assets – Petitioner concealed employment details, salary account, insurance benefits, provident fund, Kisan Vikas Patras and bank balances exceeding ₹15 lakhs – Admissions in cross-examination belied pleadings – Held: Deliberate suppression disentitles petitioner from equitable relief and amounts to abuse of process of law [Paras 7–8, 11].

False Plea of Adoption – Conduct of Litigant – Petitioner claimed adoption of child without consent of respondent – No documentary proof, ceremony or change in official records – Admission in cross-examination that respondent never consented – Held: Plea raised only to invoke sympathy and mislead Court [Paras 5–6].

Standard for Grant of Maintenance – Object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Provision intended to prevent destitution and vagrancy and not to facilitate unjust enrichment – Maintenance cannot be claimed as a matter of right when wife is capable of self-support – Courts must guard against misuse of benevolent legislation [Paras 11–13].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Limited Scope – High Court will not interfere with well-reasoned findings of Family Court unless perversity or illegality shown – Impugned order based on appreciation of evidence and admissions of petitioner – No infirmity warranting interference [Paras 13–14].

Decision: Criminal Revision dismissed – Order dated 08.07.2025 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Kurukshetra dismissing maintenance petition upheld.

Review Jurisdiction – Scope and Limitations – Error Apparent on Face of Record – Review under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC maintainable only on discovery of new evidence, error apparent on face of record or analogous grounds – Review not an appeal in disguise – Re-appreciation of facts or re-argument on merits impermissible – Settled principles reiterated [Paras 5–6].

Order IX Rule 13 CPC – Limitation – COVID-19 Extension Orders – Plea Raised for First Time in Review – Ex-parte decree dated 11.02.2020 – Application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC filed on 27.01.2022 – Benefit of Supreme Court’s suo motu extension of limitation during COVID-19 not pleaded before Trial Court or in appeal – Ground raised for first time in review – Held: Not an error apparent on face of record – Review cannot be used to introduce new grounds not urged earlier [Paras 7–7.4].

Order IX Rule 13 CPC – Knowledge of Proceedings – False Plea of Lack of Notice – Record showed repeated appearances of police officials even after suit transferred to District Court – Notices issued and appearances recorded post ex-parte order – Petitioners also served with caveat after decree – Plea that knowledge arose only on receipt of execution notice found false – Findings based on admitted and undisputed material – No error apparent [Paras 8–8.6].

Governmental Delay – Public Authorities – Liberal Approach – Not Automatically Applicable – Plea of institutional delay and systemic lapses not raised in appeal – No case of breakdown of communication or administrative delay pleaded earlier – Mere claim of impression that no further steps were required after filing written statement rejected – Reliance on Sheo Raj Singh (2023) SCC misplaced – No ground for review [Paras 9–9.1].

Review vs Appeal – Finality of Judgments – Review cannot be invoked to fill lacunae, improve pleadings or raise entirely new arguments – Findings in impugned appellate judgment based on pleadings and record suffer from no infirmity – No patent error demonstrated [Paras 6.1–6.3, 10].

Decision: Review petition dismissed – No error apparent on face of record – Judgment dated 28.11.2025 dismissing FAO No. 53/2023 upheld – No order as to costs.

Look Out Circular – Nature and Scope – Coercive Measure – LOC is a coercive measure intended to secure presence of an accused who is deliberately evading arrest or judicial process and where there is likelihood of fleeing the country – Mere pendency of investigation or seriousness of allegations is not sufficient to justify continuation of LOC [Paras 44–45].

Criminal Investigation – Cooperation by Accused – Effect on LOC – Petitioners had consistently joined investigation, complied with summons, furnished documents, and cooperated in search and seizure proceedings – No material to show evasion of process of law or non-cooperation – Held: Continuation of LOC unjustified [Paras 43, 46].

Non-Bailable Warrants – Absence – Relevance – No NBWs or coercive processes issued by any Court against Petitioners – Absence of NBWs is a significant factor against issuance or continuation of LOC – LOC cannot be sustained when statutory preconditions are absent [Paras 47, 49].

Right to Travel Abroad – Article 21 – Reasonable Restrictions – Right to travel abroad is part of personal liberty under Article 21 – Restrictions must satisfy test of fairness, reasonableness and proportionality – In absence of flight risk or evasion, indefinite restraint on travel violates constitutional safeguards [Paras 19, 38, 49].

Economic Offences – Public Interest – Balancing Test – Allegations relate to period 2007–2014 and investigation ongoing for several years – Petitioners’ professional expertise crucial for national interest in fertilizer procurement – Public interest does not warrant mechanical curtailment of liberty when investigation is not prejudiced [Paras 12–16, 23–24, 48].

Precedent – Sumer Singh Salkan Case – Principles governing LOC reiterated – LOC permissible only where accused is absconding, evading arrest or trial, or likely to flee – None of the conditions satisfied in present case – LOC liable to be quashed [Paras 44–46, 49].

Safeguards Imposed by Court – While quashing LOC, Court directed Petitioners to keep Trial Court informed of residence and contact details – Prior intimation to be given for foreign travel along with itinerary and place of stay – Balance struck between liberty and investigation [Para 50].

Decision: Writ Petitions allowed – Look Out Circulars quashed – Petitioners permitted to travel subject to conditions imposed – Pending applications disposed of.

Anticipatory Bail – Corruption and Economic Offences – Public Servants – Stringent Scrutiny – Petition under Section 482 BNSS seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR registered under IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act alleging forged work orders, manipulated estimates and illegal release of payments – Petitioners were public servants posted in Municipal Corporation Accounts Branch – Allegations disclose abuse of official position, criminal conspiracy and wrongful loss to public exchequer of more than ₹12 crores – Held: Anticipatory bail in corruption cases can be granted only in exceptional circumstances – No prima facie case of false implication or frivolous prosecution made out [Paras 6–7].

Anticipatory Bail – Custodial Interrogation – Necessity in Economic Offences – Petitioners contended that case rests solely on documentary evidence and custodial interrogation is unnecessary – Held: In cases involving forgery of official records, manipulation of electronic data, audit processes and multi-layered conspiracy, custodial interrogation is often indispensable to ascertain knowledge, intent, trace money trail and identify other beneficiaries – Grant of pre-arrest bail likely to hamper effective investigation [Paras 7–9].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Abuse of Official Position – Societal Impact – Corruption by public servants held to be an offence not merely against an individual but against society at large – Economic offences erode public confidence in public administration – Courts required to exercise greater caution while considering anticipatory bail in such matters [Paras 7–8].

Multiple FIRs – Same Transaction – Plea Not Decidable at Bail Stage – Petitioners argued that multiple FIRs on same set of work orders amounted to abuse of process – Prosecution asserted that each FIR pertained to distinct forged work orders unearthed at different stages of investigation – Held: Whether FIRs arise out of same transaction or constitute distinct offences is a mixed question of law and fact to be examined at trial – Plea cannot be conclusively adjudicated at anticipatory bail stage [Para 8].

Parity in Bail – Earlier Anticipatory Bail Orders – No Automatic Right – Reliance placed on grant of anticipatory bail in earlier FIRs on similar allegations – Held: Each bail application must be decided on its own facts and circumstances – Grant of bail in other FIRs does not ipso facto entitle accused to anticipatory bail in subsequent FIR involving expanding conspiracy [Para 8].

Anticipatory Bail – Balance Between Individual Liberty and Societal Interest – Court reiterated need to balance personal liberty with societal interest in fair and effective investigation – Over-solicitous approach towards liberty in corruption cases may defeat public justice – At this stage, material on record discloses reasonable grounds for accusations – Anticipatory bail declined [Paras 8–9].

Decision – Petition dismissed – Anticipatory bail refused – Observations confined only to bail consideration and not to influence merits of investigation or trial – Pending applications disposed of [Para 10].

Service Law – Pension – No Liability Certificate – Retired Headmaster sought issuance of No Liability Certificate and release of pensionary benefits – School authority withheld certificate alleging defalcation and incomplete accounts during service period – Criminal proceedings pending under Sections 409 and 465 IPC – Held: Non-issuance of No Liability Certificate justified in facts of case [Paras 23–26, 33].

Pension as Property – Article 300A – Not an Absolute Right – Though pension is a constitutionally protected property right, it is not automatic or unconditional – Subject to statutory scheme governing service and retirement benefits – DCRB Scheme, 1981 governs entitlement [Paras 12, 28–31].

DCRB Scheme, 1981 – Scope after Retirement – Scheme 19 – Full pension not a matter of course – Pension can be reduced or withheld where service not thoroughly satisfactory or where charge of corruption/misconduct is proved or reasonably presumed – Scheme applicable even to pensioners – Argument that scheme ceases to apply after retirement rejected [Paras 28–31].

Misconduct and Defalcation – Audit Report – Evidentiary Value – Auditor appointed by Directorate of School Education found defalcation exceeding ₹5.47 lakhs including unaccounted sports grant – Strong presumption of financial misconduct arises – Justifies withholding of final pension and gratuity pending outcome of proceedings [Paras 26, 30–31, 33].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Institution before Retirement – Effect – Though no formal disciplinary proceedings were initiated before superannuation, repeated complaints were made to higher authorities during service tenure – Subsequent criminal proceedings and audit revelations distinguish case from precedents where no action whatsoever was taken [Paras 32–33].

Criminal Proceedings – Pendency – Effect on Pension – Where criminal case relating to misconduct during service is pending, employee may be entitled only to provisional pension – Final pension and gratuity can be withheld till conclusion of proceedings [Paras 25, 34].

Provisional Pension – Entitlement – Scheme 19(5) – Pension sanctioning authority empowered to grant provisional pension pending conclusion of disciplinary/judicial proceedings – Gratuity not payable during such period – Matter directed to be considered by Principal Secretary, School Education Department [Paras 34–36].

Precedents on Withholding Pension – Distinguishability – Judgments relied on by petitioner concerned cases of arbitrary withholding without enquiry or proceedings – Present case involves audit findings, criminal prosecution and strong presumption of misconduct – Held: Said precedents not applicable [Paras 32].

Decision – Writ Petition Disposed of – Prayer for No Liability Certificate and immediate pension rejected – Matter referred to Principal Secretary, School Education Department to consider grant of provisional pension under DCRB Scheme, 1981 by reasoned order within eight weeks – Opportunity of hearing to be afforded [Paras 35–37].

Bail – Murder Case – Conspiracy – Accused Not Present at Scene of Crime – Petitioner (Accused No.11) alleged to have only intimated the movement of the deceased to principal accused – No overt act of assault attributed to him – Petitioner not present at the place of occurrence – Role limited to prior intimation – Held: Case distinguishable from main assailants and comparable to co-accused granted bail [Paras 7–9].

Bail – Parity with Co-Accused – Accused Nos.8 and 9, who were present at the spot but not armed and had not assaulted the deceased, already granted bail – Petitioner’s role held to be similar or lesser in gravity – Ground of parity applicable – Bail cannot be denied when similarly placed co-accused are enlarged on bail [Para 9].

Bail – Prolonged Custody – Delay in Trial – Petitioner in judicial custody since 28.07.2021 (over 4½ years) – Charge sheet cites 111 witnesses – Only some witnesses including major eye-witnesses examined – About 80 witnesses yet to be examined – Trial likely to take considerable time – Delay not attributable to petitioner – Continued incarceration held unjustified [Paras 10–12].

Bail – Suppression of Earlier Bail Petition – Effect – Though petitioner had earlier bail petitions dismissed, subsequent circumstances including long incarceration and delay in trial constitute change in circumstances – Suppression alone not sufficient to deny bail when liberty under Article 21 is implicated [Paras 4, 6, 13].

Article 21 – Right to Speedy Trial – Prosecution failing to secure witnesses on scheduled dates – Adjournments granted for want of witnesses – Prolonged trial infringes right to personal liberty – Bail granted without expressing opinion on merits [Paras 10–13].

Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent – Principles laid down in Praveen Rathore v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1268 applied – Long incarceration and delayed trial justify grant of bail [Para 11].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Petitioner granted bail subject to conditions including execution of bond, non-tampering of witnesses, regular appearance before trial court, and non-involvement in further offences.

Civil Law – Ownership of Immovable Property – Licensee versus Owner – Respondent claimed exclusive ownership of suit property on basis of perpetual lease deed and conveyance deed – Appellant claimed ownership as HUF property and by oral partition – Allotment card of 1950 conferred only tenancy rights and not ownership – Proprietary rights accrued only on execution of perpetual lease deed in 1971 and conveyance deed in 1999 – Other legal heirs relinquished their shares in favour of respondent – Held: Respondent proved absolute ownership; appellant failed to establish HUF or joint family property [Paras 18–26, 41–45].

Hindu Law – Hindu Undivided Family – Burden of Proof – Mere existence of joint family or migration together does not raise presumption of HUF property – Burden lies on person asserting joint family property to prove nucleus and acquisition from joint family funds – Appellant led only bald averments without documentary evidence – Held: Suit property not proved to be HUF property [Paras 42–44].

Contract Law – License Agreement – Revocability – Agreement dated 24.09.1996 permitted appellant to occupy front portion of property during his lifetime – Agreement expressly recognised respondent as owner and excluded rights of appellant’s legal heirs – No interest in property created – Held: Agreement constituted a bare and revocable license under Section 52 of Easements Act [Paras 27–28, 52–59, 62–63].

Will – Nature and Effect – Will dated 24.09.1996 executed by respondent in favour of appellant admitted by appellant – Will revoked in 2009 – Will operates only after death of testator – Testator alive and beneficiary predeceased – Held: No rights accrued to appellant under Will; admission of Will amounts to admission of respondent’s ownership [Paras 29–31, 35–36, 50–51].

Admissions – Estoppel – Appellant and his son admitted execution and contents of Agreement and Will acknowledging respondent as owner – Earlier suit filed by appellant based on same documents claiming only possessory rights – Held: Appellant estopped from disputing respondent’s ownership [Paras 30–37].

Res Judicata – Amendment Application – Rejection of amendment application in earlier suit seeking declaration of ownership does not operate as res judicata – No adjudication on merits regarding ownership in earlier proceedings – Held: Trial Court erred in applying res judicata, but finding did not affect final conclusion on merits [Paras 38–40].

Limitation – Suit for Possession by Licensor – Cause of action arose upon cancellation of Will in 2009 and revocation of license by notice dated 03.05.2010 – Suit filed in 2010 within limitation – Article 59 and Section 65 of Limitation Act not applicable – Held: Suit not barred by limitation [Paras 65–69, 71].

Displaced Persons Law – Section 29 of 1954 Act – Applicability – Protection under Section 29 applies only to evacuee properties or notified classes – Suit property not evacuee property – Appellant neither tenant nor allottee under Act – Held: Section 29 inapplicable [Para 70].

Evidence – Interested Witnesses – Testimony of respondent’s siblings relied upon by appellant suffered from contradictions and admitted strained relations – Evidence required heightened scrutiny – Held: Trial Court rightly discarded their testimony [Paras 45–49].

Mesne Profits – Proof Required – Respondent sought enhancement of mesne profits beyond Rs. 5,000 per month awarded by Trial Court – No evidence led regarding prevailing market rent of comparable properties – Held: Enhanced mesne profits cannot be granted without evidence; liberty granted to initiate separate proceedings [Paras 73–75].

Relief – Possession and Injunction – License validly revoked – Appellant in unauthorised occupation thereafter – Respondent entitled to possession, damages, interest and permanent injunction – Appeals dismissed [Paras 76–79].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 16.05.2013 affirmed – Respondent held absolute owner – Appellant directed to hand over possession – Decretal amount with interest to be released to respondent – Liberty granted to seek mesne profits separately.