Civil Suit – Rejection of Plaint – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Application seeking rejection of plaint on ground that suit for administration of estate is barred in law as plaintiff had propounded a Will and probate proceedings were pending – Held: Plaint cannot be rejected where it discloses a cause of action and is not barred by law – Order VII Rule 11 invoked erroneously [Paras 57–58, 70–71, 76].

Administration of Estate – Civil Court Jurisdiction – Distinction from Probate Proceedings – Plaintiff propounded Will of 1994 and filed probate petition as executor – Defendant contended civil court lacked jurisdiction till probate decided – Held: Probate court has exclusive jurisdiction only to decide genuineness and execution of Will – Administration of estate and protective reliefs fall within civil court’s jurisdiction – Remedies are distinct and can proceed concurrently [Paras 59–62, 73, 77].

Pending Probate – Maintainability of Administration Suit – Mere pendency of testamentary proceedings does not bar institution or continuation of suit for administration of estate – Grant of probate may follow suit but must precede final decree – Section 213 of Succession Act not a bar to institution of civil action [Paras 63–64].

Executor – Section 211 Succession Act – Legal Representative – Executor becomes legal representative of deceased upon death – Vesting of estate enables prosecution of civil proceedings without waiting for probate – Rights subject to outcome of probate proceedings [Paras 63, 45].

Two Competing Wills – Civil Court’s Limited Role – Plaintiff acknowledged later Will of 2012 propounded by defendant – Held: Civil court need not and cannot decide which Will is genuine – Testamentary court alone to adjudicate validity – Civil court confined to administration and protection of estate [Paras 62, 73–74].

Alternative Pleas – Will and Intestacy – Permissibility – Plaintiff sought administration as per Will and alternatively on intestacy – Objection that pleas were mutually destructive rejected – Held: Alternative pleas permissible where factual foundation not inconsistent – Alternate relief would arise only if both Wills held invalid [Paras 65–67].

Contradictory vs Alternative Pleas – Test Applied – Pleas not self-destructive as they operate on different eventualities – Reliance on Praful Manohar Rele and Sarva Shramik Sangh affirmed – No bar to claiming alternate reliefs on same factual matrix [Paras 65–67].

Rejection of Plaint in Parts – Impermissible – Defendant sought rejection of prayers (a) to (c) alone – Held: Plaint must be read as whole – Partial rejection not permissible under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 70].

Concurrent Proceedings – Civil and Testamentary Courts – Suit for administration and probate proceedings may proceed simultaneously – Final decree in administration suit to await outcome of probate proceedings [Paras 77].

Decision – Notice of Motion seeking rejection of plaint dismissed – Suit held maintainable – Four weeks’ stay granted on operation of order [Paras 78–80].

Pre-emption – Co-sharer’s Right – Superior Right – Plaintiff proved to be co-sharer at time of sale and institution of suit – Suit land forming part of joint holding and not partitioned – Held: Co-sharer in unpartitioned land has superior right of pre-emption over vendee [Paras 5–7, 15–16].

Pre-emption – Gair Mumkin Bara – Section 5(b) Punjab Pre-emption Act – Exclusion of reclaimed waste land – Mere entry of land as Gair Mumkin Bara does not automatically attract bar under Section 5(b) – No evidence that land was reclaimed waste land by vendee – Held: Suit land remains pre-emptable [Paras 14–15].

Partition – Effect on Right of Pre-emption – Private partition mutation relied upon by vendee – Mutation related only to agricultural land – No proof of partition of Bara portion – Bara continued to remain joint – Held: Plaintiff continued as co-sharer retaining right of pre-emption [Paras 15–16].

Improvements – Claim by Vendee – Expenditure on improvements – Plea of spending ₹4,500/- on raising boundary walls – No cogent evidence produced – Self-serving plea rejected by courts below – Findings affirmed [Paras 5–7].

Concurrent Findings – Scope of Regular Second Appeal – Trial Court and First Appellate Court concurrently held plaintiff entitled to decree of pre-emption – Findings based on proper appreciation of evidence – No substantial question of law arising – Held: No interference warranted under Section 100 CPC [Paras 16–17].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed – Judgments and decrees dated 22.07.1992 and 27.07.1993 passed by the Courts below upheld – Concurrent findings affirmed – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 17–18].

NDPS Act – Possession of Poppy Husk – Conviction under Section 15(c) – Acquittal on Appeal – Failure to Prove Case Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Appellants convicted for possession of three gunny bags each containing about 40 kg poppy husk – Conviction challenged on grounds of contradictions in prosecution evidence and non-compliance of statutory provisions – Held: Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction set aside and appellants acquitted [Paras 21, 29].

Evidence – Official Witnesses – Material Contradictions – Effect – Prosecution case rested solely on police witnesses – DSP shown to be present simultaneously at two different places in two separate FIRs on same date and time – Contradictions regarding place of bags in jeep, weighing method, seals, custody and return of seals – No independent public witness joined despite availability – Held: Contradictions go to root of prosecution case and render recovery doubtful [Paras 22].

Search and Seizure – FIR Number Mentioned on Documents Prepared Prior to Registration of FIR – Serious Infirmity – Recovery memo, site plan and other documents prepared allegedly at spot contained FIR number though FIR registered later – No explanation offered by prosecution – Reliance placed on precedents – Held: Indicates documents were prepared subsequently and investigation is doubtful [Paras 23].

NDPS Act – Section 52A – Non-Compliance – Fatal to Prosecution – Case property and samples not produced before Magistrate – No inventory certified by Magistrate – Samples sent to FSL were those drawn at spot – Mandatory safeguard under Section 52A violated – Held: Non-compliance vitiates prosecution and benefit must go to accused [Paras 24–25].

Delay in Sending Samples to FSL – Violation of Standing Order No. 1 of 1988 – Sample sent after unexplained delay of nine days – Standing Order mandates dispatch within 72 hours – Seal custody doubtful – Possibility of tampering not ruled out – Adverse inference drawn against prosecution [Paras 26–27].

Sample Seal – Preparation and Custody – Serious Lapse – Prosecution witnesses silent on preparation of sample seal at spot – Contradictory versions regarding handing over and return of seal – Sample seal not produced before Magistrate – Held: Sanctity of samples compromised and prosecution case weakened [Paras 27–28].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgment of conviction dated 20.09.2004 set aside – Appellants acquitted of charge under Section 15(c) NDPS Act – Bail bonds discharged – Case property ordered to be confiscated and destroyed – Jeep to be returned to registered owner as per rules.

Land Acquisition – Vesting of Land – Section 16(2) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Once possession taken and notification issued, land vests absolutely in acquiring body – Subsequent mutation claims by erstwhile landholders untenable pending adjudication of acquisition challenge [Paras 2, 9, 10].

Revenue Proceedings – Mutation and Khata – Section 136(2), Karnataka Land Revenue Act – Mutation is fiscal entry – Cannot override acquisition proceedings or vesting of land in beneficiary Society – Authorities must examine subsisting legal rights and not merely inheritance claims [Paras 8–10].

Administrative Orders – Reliance on Recalled Judicial Order – Deputy Commissioner relied on High Court order dated 06-07-2009 which stood recalled by order dated 25-07-2019 – Order passed on non-existent judicial foundation – Vitiated by non-application of mind [Paras 10–11].

Judicial Review – Error Apparent on Face of Record – Revisional authority ignored binding and operative orders restoring writ petition to file – Failure to notice that acquisition proceedings and possession stood affirmed earlier – Order liable to be quashed [Paras 10–11].

Remand – Proper Course – Though Assistant Commissioner’s order also under challenge, revisional order being fundamentally flawed – Matter remitted to Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration – Assistant Commissioner’s order stayed pending decision [Para 11].

Principles of Natural Justice and Reasoned Orders – Revenue authorities required to pass speaking orders considering entire litigation history – Mechanical reliance on recalled judgments impermissible [Paras 10–11].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – Order dated 25-10-2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner in R.P. No.201/2020 quashed – Matter remitted to Deputy Commissioner for fresh decision in accordance with law – Order dated 03-06-2016 passed by Assistant Commissioner in R.A.(BNA) No.60/2016-17 stayed till disposal of revision petition [Paras 11–12].

Civil Law – Appointment of Local Commissioner – Order 26 Rule 9 CPC – Refusal to Appoint Commissioner – Revisability – Petition filed under Article 227 challenging order of Civil Judge (Junior Division) dismissing application for appointment of Local Commissioner – Held: Order refusing appointment of Local Commissioner neither decides any issue nor adjudicates rights of parties and therefore is not revisable – Appointment of Local Commissioner is purely discretionary and no vested right accrues to any party [Paras 1–3].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 of Constitution – Limited Scope – High Court reiterated that supervisory jurisdiction is not meant to circumvent settled law on maintainability of revisions – Reliance placed on binding Division Bench judgment holding such orders as non-revisable – No illegality or perversity found in impugned order [Paras 2–3].

Withdrawal of Revision Petition – Liberty to Lead Evidence – Petitioner sought permission to withdraw revision in view of settled legal position and availability of opportunity to lead evidence at appropriate stage – Revision dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to petitioner to adduce relevant evidence during trial [Paras 4–5].

Decision: Civil Revision dismissed as withdrawn – Liberty granted to petitioner to lead relevant evidence before Trial Court.

Criminal Law – Sexual Offences Against Child – Conviction Based on Sole Testimony of Victim – Sufficiency of Evidence – Appellant convicted for wrongful restraint, outraging modesty and rape of a minor girl – Victim gave a clear, cogent and consistent account of sexual assault involving digital penetration and sexual acts – Cross-examination failed to discredit her testimony – Held: Conviction can be safely based on sole testimony of prosecutrix when it inspires confidence [Paras 14–17, 22].

Evidence – Minor Contradictions and Omissions – Effect – Defence highlighted omissions in statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC and discrepancies regarding disclosure of incident – Held: Minor omissions which do not affect the core of prosecution case are inconsequential and do not undermine credibility of victim’s testimony [Paras 16, 23–24].

Medical Evidence – Absence of Injuries – Not Fatal – Medical examination conducted after lapse of time showed no genital injuries – Doctor opined that injuries could heal within 7–10 days – Held: Absence of medical corroboration does not discredit otherwise trustworthy testimony of victim – Medical evidence not sine qua non for conviction in sexual offence cases [Paras 20–22].

Delay in Lodging FIR – Sexual Offences – Explained – FIR lodged after victim disclosed incident to friend and family – Delay satisfactorily explained due to fear, trauma and social stigma – Held: Delay in sexual offence cases cannot be equated with other crimes and does not vitiate prosecution case [Paras 22].

Non-Examination of Certain Witnesses – Adverse Inference – When Not Warranted – Defence argued non-examination of daughter of appellant and other relatives – Held: When evidence on record is overwhelming and unimpeachable, non-examination of some witnesses is not fatal and does not warrant adverse inference [Paras 36].

Rape – Section 375(b) IPC – Digital Penetration – Act of inserting finger into private part of minor squarely falls within Section 375(b) IPC – Consent irrelevant as victim was a minor – Offence of rape clearly made out [Paras 41–42].

Goa Children’s Act – Grave Sexual Assault – Acts proved constituted “grave sexual assault” under Sections 2(y)(i) & (ii) punishable under Section 8(2) – Conviction under special statute justified [Paras 43–44].

Sentence – Age of Accused – No Mitigation in Child Sexual Offence – Appellant aged above 80 years sought leniency – Held: Advanced age of accused not a mitigating factor in offences involving sexual assault on a child – Protection of child and societal conscience paramount [Paras 50–52].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentences imposed by Children’s Court affirmed – Appellant directed to surrender forthwith – Prayer for stay rejected.

Criminal Law – Murder and Attempt to Murder – Appeal against Conviction – Abatement of Appeal on Death of Co-Accused – Appeal surviving only for one accused – Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC – Common Intention – Proof – Appeal partly abated due to death of accused-appellant Nos. 1 and 2 – Appeal considered only qua surviving appellant – Conviction challenged on ground of absence of common intention and overt act – Prosecution case based on prompt FIR, consistent eyewitness testimony and corroborative medical and forensic evidence – Accused arrived together armed with country-made pistols and bombs and jointly attacked victims – Pre-planned and premeditated assault established – Held: Ingredients of Section 34 IPC fully proved and conviction justified [Paras 1, 10, 21, 29, 33].

Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – Scope and Application – Contention that surviving appellant did not fire at deceased and therefore could not be convicted with aid of Section 34 IPC – Rejected – Common intention can be inferred from conduct, circumstances and participation in joint criminal act – Active presence, being armed, and participation in attack sufficient – Supreme Court precedents relied upon – Held: Section 34 IPC rightly invoked [Paras 11–13, 26–29].

Evidence Appreciation – Eyewitness Testimony – Credibility – Informant (PW-1) natural and reliable witness – Presence at place of occurrence established – Testimony consistent with FIR and corroborated by PW-2 – No material contradictions or embellishments – Evidence inspires confidence – Held: Conviction can safely be based on such testimony [Paras 16–20].

Medical and Forensic Evidence – Corroboration of Ocular Version – Multiple firearm and blast injuries found on deceased and injured witnesses – Medical opinion consistent with use of firearms and bombs – Recovery of empty cartridges, pellets, tiklis and bomb remnants from scene – Oral evidence fully supported by medical and scientific evidence – Held: Prosecution version proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 21–25].

Sentence – Life Imprisonment – No Interference Warranted – Trial Court’s judgment based on proper appreciation of evidence – No perversity or illegality found – Appeal dismissed – Surviving appellant directed to surrender to undergo remaining sentence – Bail cancelled [Paras 30–36].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC affirmed – Direction issued for surrender of surviving appellant and compliance by Chief Judicial Magistrate.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act – Section 11(6) – Institutional Arbitration – Exhaustion of Agreed Procedure Mandatory – Employment agreements contained arbitration clause providing for appointment of sole arbitrator in accordance with MCIA Rules – Respondent accepted invocation of arbitration and did not default in agreed procedure – Held: Where parties have consciously agreed to an institutional mechanism for appointment of arbitrator, Court cannot appoint arbitrator under Section 11 without first requiring parties to exhaust agreed procedure – Section 11 jurisdiction arises only upon failure of agreed mechanism [Paras 13–16].

Arbitration Clause – MCIA Rules – Seat and Venue at Indore – No Inconsistency – Contention that MCIA Rules can operate only if seat is Mumbai rejected – Rule 30 of MCIA Rules permits parties to agree on seat of arbitration – Fixing Indore as seat and venue does not render MCIA Rules inapplicable – Arbitration clause held coherent and workable [Paras 11–12].

Section 11 Jurisdiction – Prematurity of Petition – Applicants invoked arbitration and respondent consented to invocation – Applicants failed to take further steps under MCIA Rules for appointment of arbitrator – Direct approach to High Court held premature and impermissible – Court cannot bypass institutional framework agreed by parties [Paras 13–16].

Party Autonomy – Binding Nature of Arbitration Agreement – Parties bound by dispute resolution clause consciously agreed in employment contracts – Applicants cannot resile from agreed procedure merely because arbitration is institutional – Party autonomy is cornerstone of arbitration law and must be respected [Paras 14–16].

Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent – Parmar Construction Case – Reiterated that default procedure under Section 11 can be invoked only when agreed appointment mechanism fails or becomes inoperative – High Court must first give effect to contractual mechanism before appointing independent arbitrator [Paras 14–15].

Multiple Applications – Common Arbitration Clause – Common Outcome – All three employment agreements contained identical arbitration clause – Common order passed dismissing all three applications – Liberty granted to applicants to invoke MCIA mechanism in accordance with rules [Paras 1, 17].

Decision – Arbitration Case Nos. 105, 106 and 107 of 2025 dismissed – Liberty granted to applicants to approach Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration for appointment of sole arbitrator as per MCIA Rules and employment agreements – No appointment made by Court under Section 11 [Para 17].

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance – Wife Living Separately – Sufficient Cause – Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. – Family Court denied maintenance to wife on ground that she refused to return to matrimonial home during proceedings under Section 9 HMA – Held, refusal to resume cohabitation despite restitution proceedings does not by itself disentitle wife from maintenance – Disqualification under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. wrongly applied – Impugned finding unsustainable [Paras 8–9].

Maintenance – Cruelty and Dowry Demand – Proof – Family Court held absence of dowry or cruelty complaints fatal to wife’s claim – Held, non-filing of criminal complaint cannot be sole basis to deny maintenance – Conduct of husband in denying paternity of minor child indicative of matrimonial discord – Approach of Family Court held erroneous and hyper-technical [Paras 8–10].

Maintenance – Earning Capacity of Wife – Educational Qualification – Gainful Employment – Family Court rejected wife’s claim on ground of concealment of education and alleged earning capacity – Held, mere qualification or potential to earn not sufficient to deny maintenance – No cogent evidence of actual gainful employment produced by husband – Capacity to earn distinct from actual earning – Statutory right to maintenance cannot be defeated on speculative grounds [Paras 10, 11, 15–16].

Maintenance – Minor Child – Quantum – Adequacy – Maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month awarded to adolescent son held grossly inadequate – Father’s admitted gross salary of Rs. 48,350/- per month ignored – Excessive deductions towards loans wrongly permitted – Principles laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha requiring fair and realistic assessment overlooked [Paras 11, 17].

Maintenance – Social Justice – Object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Courts must adopt humane and practical approach – Maintenance provision intended to prevent destitution and ensure dignified life for wife and child – Mere ability to work or earn meagre income insufficient to deny relief – Wife entitled to live with dignity consistent with husband’s status [Paras 11–14].

Criminal Revision – Interference with Family Court Order – Family Court misconstrued evidence and misapplied settled legal principles – Order found legally unsustainable – Matter remanded for fresh determination of maintenance in accordance with law and Supreme Court guidelines [Paras 15–18].

Decision: Criminal Revision allowed – Order dated 03.10.2024 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bulandshahr set aside – Matter remanded to Family Court for fresh determination of maintenance payable to wife and minor son – Family Court directed to pass a reasoned order within one month – All rights and contentions of parties kept open.