Criminal Complaint – Sections 156(3) and 202 Cr.P.C – Magistrate’s Discretion – Allegations of assault/intimidation arising from civil road dispute – Magistrate opted to hold enquiry under Section 202 instead of police investigation under Section 156(3) – Held: Magistrate’s discretion proper; no inevitable requirement for police investigation; Article 227 jurisdiction limited to cases of manifest miscarriage of justice – Petition dismissed [Paras 2-9, 12].

Civil Dispute – Criminal Allegations – Complaint disclosed four separate incidents (2022–2023) of assault, intimidation, and outraging of modesty – Court observed root cause was civil dispute over right of way; multiplicity of alleged crimes justified Magistrate’s cautious approach to proceed with enquiry rather than police referral [Paras 2-7].

Recovery/Investigation – Alleged use of rod and dagger years earlier – Court held police recovery/custodial interrogation not feasible or necessary; no ground to mandate investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. [Para 9].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Scope – Citing Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath (2009) and Rajendra Diwan v. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala (2019), Court reiterated Article 227 power is supervisory, not appellate; interference only in cases of patent illegality or manifest injustice – Not meant to substitute Magistrate’s discretion [Paras 10-11].

Decision – Magistrate’s decision to proceed under Section 202 Cr.P.C. upheld; no exceptional ground for interference under Article 227 – Petition dismissed with appreciation for assistance of Amicus Curiae [Para 12].

Civil Revision – Withdrawal of Earlier Suit – Order 23 Rule 1 CPC – Permission to file fresh suit implied – Plaintiff withdrew earlier Title Suit No.160/1979 with prayer for liberty to file fresh suit – Trial Court allowed withdrawal but did not expressly mention liberty – Held: Order must be construed as granting composite prayer – Fresh suit not barred – Trial Court erred in holding otherwise – Civil revision allowed, impugned order set aside, suit restored for decision on merits [Paras 5–7, 9–10].

Interpretation – Withdrawal with Liberty – Where order allows withdrawal without specifically refusing liberty sought, it is deemed that liberty was granted – Court cannot split relief – Composite prayer under Order 23 Rule 1 must be allowed or rejected in toto – Supported by precedents Sukumar Banerjee v. Dilip Kumar Sarkar, AIR 1982 Cal 17, and Khudi Rai v. Lalo Rai, AIR 1926 Pat 259 [Paras 5–9].

Decision – Civil Revision No.54/2013 allowed – Order dated 22.12.2012 of Sub-Judge VIII, Siwan set aside – Title Suit No. 340/1985 to be decided on merits as per law [Para 10].

Lease Agreement – COVID-19 – Force Majeure Clause – Appeal Dismissed – Rent partially waived for lockdown period – Liquidated damages and penal rent claims rejected due to lack of actual loss – Amendment to Section 10 of Specific Relief Act held inapplicable to pre-2018 contracts [Paras 26-27, 44-46, 60-68].

Force Majeure – Lease Interpretation – Clause 12 invoked during COVID-19 – Pandemic held to be covered under “Act of God” and “Embargo” – Court upheld that the conditions in Clause 12 were illustrative, not exhaustive – Held: Lockdown restrictions justified non-payment of rent for April and May 2020 [Paras 26-27, 46-48].

Penalty Clauses – Clauses 14.2 and 7.2 – Claim for six months’ additional rent and double rent rejected – Held: No breach committed by lessee, and liquidated damages require proof of actual loss under Sections 73 & 74 of Contract Act – Contractual amount is upper limit; reasonable compensation necessary – Penal rent not awarded [Paras 39-46, 54-58].

Specific Relief – Retrospective Application – Amended Section 10 of Specific Relief Act not applicable to contracts executed before 01.10.2018 – Held: Court’s discretion in granting relief retained under pre-amendment law – SC decisions in Katta Sujatha Reddy and Daivasigamani relied upon [Paras 60-71].

Equitable Apportionment – Shared Burden of Pandemic – Court awarded 50% rent for April–May 2020 – Justified on ground that both lessor and lessee suffered economic hardship – Held: Equitable solution in absence of rent waiver agreement [Paras 52-53].

Summary Judgment – Maintainability – Application under Order XIII-A filed by appellant – Appellant estopped from arguing that suit required trial – Court justified in granting limited relief and rejecting exaggerated claims without trial [Para 74].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Force majeure clause rightly applied – No penal or double rent awarded – Rent granted at 50% for April–May 2020 and full rent from June 2020 to December 2020 – Interest and GST arrears also awarded – Decree of Single Judge upheld in entirety [Paras 51, 73, 75-76].

Chandigarh Housing Board Allotment – Transfer before expiry of 10 years and without conveyance deed – Invalid – Will unproved – Parties held entitled as co-heirs – Appeals partly allowed and disposed of [Paras 16–27].

Property Dispute – Allotment under Chandigarh Housing Board – Clause 12 – Transfer of house to daughter prior to completion of 10-year period or execution of conveyance deed – Transfer invalid – Relaxation under Regulation 50 requires written reasons, absent in this case – Held: Transfer in favour of respondent Pushpa Devi contrary to allotment conditions – Possession claim unsustainable [Paras 16–19].

Will – Proof and Effect – Registered Will dated 14.07.1999 relied upon by Pushpa Devi not produced in original – Beneficiary failed to depose fully or prove due execution – Earlier judgments in collateral litigation held Will unproved – Held: No benefit can accrue from unproved Will – Claim of sole ownership by Pushpa Devi rejected [Paras 20–24].

Ownership Rights – Chandigarh Housing Board – In absence of conveyance deed, allottee remains holder of allotment rights – On death of allottee Kaushalya Devi, all legal heirs including appellant and respondent entitled equally – Neither party can claim exclusive ownership – Directions issued to have property transferred in equal shares as per rules [Para 26].

Scope of Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Substantial question of law arises where lower appellate court’s findings based on misinterpretation of allotment conditions – High Court interferes, restores trial court’s dismissal of Pushpa Devi’s suit while clarifying parties’ joint entitlement [Paras 15–19, 25–27].

Decision – RSA No.1022/2012 filed by Bhushan Sehgal allowed – Suit of Pushpa Devi for possession and mesne profits dismissed – RSA No.1583/2012 partly allowed – Bhushan Sehgal not declared sole owner, but both parties held entitled to equal shares as heirs – Appeals disposed of accordingly [Paras 25–27].

Limitation – Condonation of Delay – Delay of 1357 days in filing Second Appeal – Applicant Panchayat challenged Appellate Court decree of 2018 only after execution proceedings were initiated in 2023 – Applicant originally exonerated by Trial Court – Appellate Court imposed monetary liability despite no appeal by plaintiff – Held: Applicant failed to offer sufficient cause for long delay – Knowledge of decree established – Delay not bona fide – Gross negligence and indolent conduct disentitles applicant from discretionary relief under Section 5 of the Limitation Act [Paras 4, 9, 14–20, 32.1–33]

Civil Procedure – Merger of Decree – Though Trial Court dismissed suit against defendant no. 1, Appellate Court held otherwise – Decree of Appellate Court prevails – Defendant No.1 cannot avoid liability on ground of original exoneration once appellate decree imposed payment obligations – Failure to appeal in time makes decree binding [Paras 16–17]

Execution – Attachment of Property – Execution application initiated due to non-compliance with money decree – Order of attachment passed against immovable property of defendant no. 1 – Stay granted conditionally by High Court in writ petition – Subsequent delay application in appeal not a valid explanation [Paras 8, 18]

Delay – State Instrumentality – No Separate Standard – Delay by Panchayat not treated more leniently – Court reiterated that State authorities must act diligently – Lethargy, negligence, or bureaucratic delay cannot be treated as sufficient cause – State machinery must fix accountability to prevent delay [Paras 12.2, 25–26, 30]

Discretionary Power – Not Absolute – High Court reiterated that condonation of delay is a discretionary power – Cannot be invoked in absence of bona fide explanation – Length of delay, conduct of parties, and public interest must be weighed – Absence of due diligence fatal even if applicant claims good case on merits [Paras 22–23, 27–29]

Precedents Cited – Supreme Court decisions including Sheo Raj Singh, Binod Pathak, Ramkumar Choudhary, Rajneesh Kumar, Basawaraj, and Shivamma examined – Held: None support condonation in facts of present case – Explanation found insufficient, fabricated, or vague – Court must not substitute merits for diligence [Paras 21–24, 27–32]

Decision: Application dismissed – Delay of 1357 days in filing Second Appeal not condoned – Registry directed to refuse registration of appeal – Rs. 10,000 cost deposited by applicant to be disbursed to plaintiff through RTGS/NEFT [Paras 33–35]

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 148 – Deposit of Minimum 20% Compensation – Discretion of Appellate Court – Applicants challenged order of First Appellate Court directing deposit of 20% of cheque amount while granting suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. – Contention: requirement not mandatory and could not be imposed after suspension of sentence – Held: As per Muskan Enterprises & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr., 2024 INSC 1046, read with Surinder Singh Deswal v. Virender Gandhi, and Jamboo Bhandari v. MP Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., appellate court has discretion to impose such condition, but ordinarily deposit of 20% is mandatory unless case is exceptional – Word “may” in Section 148(1) to be construed as “shall” in substance – Direction to deposit 20% is valid and within jurisdiction of appellate court even if imposed subsequently [Paras 6–11, 17].

Statutory Interpretation – ‘May’ and ‘Shall’ – Legislative Intent – Court held that though Section 148(1) NI Act uses both “may” and “shall”, their context indicates different purposes: “may” gives discretion to order deposit, “shall” makes the minimum quantum of deposit mandatory once discretion is exercised – Legislative intent was to ensure partial realization of compensation to complainant during pendency of appeal – Discretion must be exercised judiciously with recorded reasons where exemption from deposit is granted [Paras 8, 10–12, 17].

Criminal Procedure – Power to Impose Deposit Condition After Suspension of Sentence – Contention that deposit order could be passed only at the time of suspension of sentence rejected – Appellate court retains jurisdiction to direct deposit any time during pendency of appeal until final disposal – Purpose of Section 148 NI Act is to secure fair compensation and discourage protraction of appeals [Paras 7, 15–16].

Judicial Precedents – Harmonisation – High Court reconciled Jamboo Bhandari and Muskan Enterprises – Held: condition of 20% deposit is ordinarily mandatory; relaxation only in exceptional cases where deposit would cause grave injustice or deprive right of appeal; reasons must be recorded [Paras 6, 11–13].

Decision:

Criminal revision application dismissed – Order of First Appellate Court directing deposit of 20% compensation upheld – Rule discharged.

Commercial tenancy – Section 12A CCA – Urgent interim relief & prior exemption order – O.VII R.11 refusal and interim injunction upheld – Petition dismissed [Paras 2–6, 7–8].

Commercial Courts Act, s.12A – Urgency & exemption – Where plaintiff sought urgent interim relief and the trial court had already granted a specific exemption from pre-institution mediation (order dated 07.09.2024), non-invocation of PIM did not abrogate s.12A – Exemption order, never challenged, attained finality; may be relied upon while rejecting O.VII R.11 plea [Paras 2, 4, 6].

Pleadings – Rejection of plaint under O.VII R.11 – Assessment confined to averments in the plaint; defence pleas (e.g., alleged fit-out extension/payment till July 2024) irrelevant at R.11 stage – Trial court correct in refusing to traverse defence material while deciding R.11 [Para 7].

Interim Injunction – Restraining creation of third-party interests – In a possession/arrears suit, evidence of substantial arrears (~₹60 lakh across floors), non-payment despite O.XV-A/O.XXXIX R.10 orders, and ongoing execution (bailiff appointed for mezzanine; ground floor execution continuing) establish a real, not illusory, urgency and justify ad-interim restraint to prevent alienation/defeat of decree [Paras 4–5].

Section 12A CCA – “Real urgency” – Seeking interim injunction coupled with facts indicating imminent risk (arrears, execution steps, apprehended alienation) constitutes genuine urgency; s.12A exemption properly invoked and cannot be re-litigated via O.VII R.11 once exemption order stands unassailed [Paras 3–6].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – No infirmity – Concurrent findings on urgency, finality of exemption order, and proper R.11 approach disclose no perversity; Art. 227 petition dismissed with upholding of impugned interlocutory orders [Para 8].

Decision: Held – Trial court order upheld; application under O.VII R.11 rightly dismissed in view of prior, unchallenged s.12A exemption and the limited R.11 inquiry; interim injunction restraining creation of third-party interests justified on facts – Petition and pending applications dismissed [Paras 6–8].

Judicial Service Recruitment – Clause 8.4 prescribing minimum 40% in each paper and 50% aggregate upheld – Administrative instructions can supplement Rules when silent – Petition dismissed [Paras 12-20].

Scope of Rules – Rules of 2007 for Punjab & Haryana provide for written test (750 marks) and viva voce (250 marks) but are silent on qualifying marks – Notifications added Clause 8.4 requiring 40% in each paper and 50% aggregate – Held: not inconsistent but supplemental to statutory scheme [Paras 10-12].

Power of High Court – Following K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala, (2006) 6 SCC 395 – High Court can prescribe benchmarks in absence of express prohibition – Ensures selection of best available talent for judiciary [Paras 13, 18].

Supreme Court Precedent – Applied Dr. Kavita Kamboj v. Punjab & Haryana High Court, (2024) 7 SCC 103 – When Rules silent, administrative instructions permissible to fill gaps – Minimum marks criteria legally sustainable [Paras 14, 17-18].

Estoppel – Petitioner had earlier challenged identical notifications in W.P. (C) 501/2024 before Supreme Court—dismissed on 18.10.2024 without liberty—thus barred from reagitating same cause [Paras 15-16].

Decision – No arbitrariness in Clause 8.4—petition dismissed—miscellaneous applications also disposed [Paras 19-21].

Tenancy Law - Eviction – Non-user – Section 12(1)(d), M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 – Decree of eviction affirmed – Shop found unused for over six months immediately preceding the suit – Electricity meter card and bills reflecting negligible/zero consumption coupled with witnesses’ testimony established non-use – Tenant failed to produce contemporaneous business records to show actual use – Held: Findings of First Appellate Court neither illegal nor perverse – Second appeal dismissed [Paras 20–29].

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – Interference with first appellate findings – Limited to substantial question of law – Where appreciation of evidence by First Appellate Court is plausible and supported by record, High Court will not reappreciate facts – No perversity shown – No interference warranted – Appeal dismissed [Paras 2–5, 20, 28–29].

Burden of Proof – Non-user ground – Initial onus on landlord to show non-use – Discharged through documentary and oral evidence – Onus then shifts to tenant to prove reasonable cause or actual use – Absence of invoices, licences, or electricity consumption showing business activity during relevant period is fatal to tenant’s defence – Adverse inference sustained [Paras 21, 23–27].

Electricity Consumption as Corroborative Evidence – Meter reading card noting “shop closed/no consumption” and bills showing only 10–11 units per month – Held indicative of no commercial activity – Supported by witness admissions and tenant’s own cross-examination acknowledging only average billing and lack of licence for “mawa” business – Non-user established [Paras 23–25].

Additional Evidence – Order 41 Rule 27 CPC – Earlier High Court remand and allowance set aside by Supreme Court – Direction to decide on existing record – High Court proceeds accordingly and evaluates only the materials already on record – No scope to re-open proof of additional documents [Paras 3–5].

Precedents – Applicability – Nilesh Laxmichand v. Shantaben (2019) 6 SCC 542 and Vora Rahimbhai (1985) 4 SCC 551 – Principles reiterated – Continuous non-use without reasonable cause for six months before suit is sufficient ground – Documentary proof of actual use expected from tenant – Applied to uphold eviction [Paras 18, 26–28].

Decision – Second appeal dismissed – First Appellate Court’s decree for eviction under Section 12(1)(d) confirmed – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 28–30].