Criminal Procedure – Second Bail Application – Judicial Propriety – Observations of Supreme Court in separate appeal criticising earlier bail order passed by same Judge – Observations described as “shocking and disappointing” and direction to place order before Chief Justice – Judge records demoralising and chilling effect of remarks – In interest of propriety, declines to hear present bail application and releases matter for reassignment [Paras 4-6].

Judicial Discipline – Impact of Superior Court’s Remarks – While acknowledging that no judicial order is immune from interference, Court notes that tenor of observations in Supreme Court judgment had substantial effect – To maintain institutional propriety and fairness, matter directed to be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for assignment to another Bench [Paras 5-7].

Administrative Direction – Bail Roster – Judge requests that future bail roster not be assigned to him in view of circumstances arising from Supreme Court’s order – Bail application released accordingly [Para 7].

Decision: Bail application not heard on merits – Matter released to be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for assignment to another Bench – Request made not to assign bail roster to the concerned Judge in future.

Partition – Joint Family Property vs Self-Acquired Property – Common Judgment in Connected Suits – Father-in-law filed suit for declaration of absolute title (O.S. No.35 of 1999) and daughter-in-law filed suit for partition (O.S. No.34 of 1999) – Both suits decided by common judgment holding property to be joint family property – Declaration suit dismissed and no appeal preferred – Held: Finding that property is joint family property attained finality – Appellant precluded from re-agitating absolute ownership in present appeal – Principle akin to finality of findings applies [Paras 18–20, 24, 27].

Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 – Rights of Daughters – Coparcenary by Birth – Trial Court granted 1/3rd share to widow and children of predeceased son – Evidence on record showed existence of three daughters – Daughters not impleaded but entitled as coparceners under Section 6 as amended – Held: Plaintiffs (widow and children of deceased son) entitled only to 1/6th share – Each daughter entitled to 1/6th share – Preliminary decree modified accordingly [Paras 29–34].

Doctrine of Lis Pendens – Alienation During Pendency of Suit – Sale deed executed by father in favour of daughter during pendency of partition suit – Held: Transfer hit by Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act – At best, transferor could alienate his own undivided share, not entire portion – Sale subject to outcome of partition [Paras 24, 29, 34].

Non-joinder in Partition Suit – Non-impleadment of Daughters – Though daughters were not made parties, non-joinder not fatal to maintainability – Shares of all coparceners can be worked out at stage of final decree – However, preliminary decree must reflect correct quantum of shares in accordance with law [Paras 31–32].

Additional Evidence in Appeal – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Documents relating to subsequent sale deed, settlement deed, tax receipts and electricity bills sought to be produced – Held: Appellate Court cannot travel beyond record except in exceptional circumstances – Documents relate to events subsequent to suit and not necessary for adjudication of core issue – Applications dismissed [Paras 41–42].

Res Judicata – Common Judgment in Connected Suits – Though reliefs in two suits were distinct, finding regarding nature of property in declaration suit attained finality due to absence of appeal – Appellant cannot reopen same issue in appeal against partition decree [Paras 26–27].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Preliminary decree modified – Plaintiffs in O.S. No.34 of 1999 entitled to 1/6th share instead of 1/3rd – Property to be divided into six equal shares – Applications for additional evidence dismissed – Parties to bear their own costs.

Criminal Law – Culpable Homicide – Alteration of Conviction – Accused convicted under Section 304 Part-I IPC for assault with axe and thenga causing multiple fractures – No eye-witness to occurrence – Prosecution relied on statement of deceased recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. treated as dying declaration and testimony of P.W.5 – Medical evidence indicated death due to fat embolism arising from multiple fractures and doctor opined that with proper treatment deceased could have survived – Held: Assault proved but intention to cause death not established – Death attributable to lack of timely medical care – Conviction under Section 304 Part-I altered to Section 325 IPC – Conviction under Section 452/34 IPC maintained [Paras 7–8].

Evidence – Dying Declaration – Statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. – Statement of deceased recorded by police (Ext.21) before death relied upon as dying declaration – Court held recording by police officer not a nullity if voluntary and truthful – Statement corroborated FIR and medical evidence regarding injuries – However, same evidence insufficient to establish culpable homicide when medical testimony suggested possibility of survival with proper treatment [Paras 6–8].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – Post-mortem revealed fourteen injuries including fractures – Cause of death opined as fat embolism due to multiple fractures – Doctor (P.W.11) stated that proper treatment could have saved deceased – Delay in medical treatment and inebriated condition of deceased relevant – Held: Chain of causation weakened for offence under Section 304 Part-I IPC [Paras 5, 7–8].

Sentencing – Long Pendency of Appeal – Incident of 1993 – Appellants aged above 65 years and undergone three months’ incarceration – Appeal pending for over three decades – Considering age, lapse of time and settled life, sentence reduced from five years R.I. to one year R.I. with enhanced fine of Rs.7,000/- each – Fine directed to be paid to informant or legal representatives under Section 357 Cr.P.C. – No separate sentence under Section 452/34 IPC – Period already undergone set off [Paras 9–11].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 304 Part-I IPC modified to Section 325 IPC – Conviction under Section 452/34 IPC affirmed – Sentence reduced to one year R.I. with fine of Rs.7,000/- each, in default three months R.I. – Fine to be disbursed to informant/L.Rs. – Set-off allowed.

Anticipatory Bail – Land Grabbing and Forgery Allegations – Missing Revenue Records – Parity with Co-Accused – Petitioner (Deputy Tahsildar) sought anticipatory bail in Crime No.379/2025 alleging creation of forged documents and missing of land records to aid land grabbers – Co-accused Nos.1, 2, 4, 7, 13 and 15 already granted anticipatory bail – Offences not punishable with death or life imprisonment – No criminal antecedents – Held: On ground of parity and absence of serious penal consequences, petitioner entitled to anticipatory bail with conditions [Paras 6–8, 10 of earlier order extracted].

Criminal Procedure – Section 438 Cr.P.C. / Section 482 BNSS – Considerations for Grant of Pre-Arrest Bail – FIR registered for offences punishable up to seven years – Allegations relate to missing documents and creation of records – Question as to custody of documents a matter of record to be established during investigation – Petitioner undertook to cooperate – Investigation in progress – Held: Where allegations require investigation and do not attract death or life imprisonment and accused undertakes cooperation, custodial interrogation not warranted at this stage [Paras 5–8, Extracted Para 10].

Parity Principle – Co-Accused Granted Anticipatory Bail – Similarly Placed Accused – Petitioner working as Deputy Tahsildar claimed no role in missing documents and not custodian of records – Court noted that similarly placed co-accused already granted relief in connected petitions – Held: In absence of distinguishing circumstances and in view of parity, relief extended to petitioner subject to stringent conditions [Paras 3, 6–8].

Conditions Imposed – Safeguards to Ensure Fair Investigation – Petitioner directed to appear before Investigating Officer within 15 days and execute bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety – Mandatory cooperation with investigation – Prohibition against tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses – Regular appearance on first and third Sunday of every month for two months or till filing of final report – Held: Conditions sufficient to safeguard prosecution interest [Order].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Petitioner granted anticipatory bail in Crime No.379/2025 of Anekal Police Station – To be released in the event of arrest subject to specified conditions.

Service Law – Police Personnel – Dismissal from Service – Acquittal in Criminal Case – Petitioner dismissed under Rule 16.2 PPR on account of involvement in NDPS case – Subsequently acquitted by Trial Court – Held: Acquittal not ipso facto ground for reinstatement – Court required to examine nature of acquittal and findings recorded by Criminal Court [Paras 2, 6, 11(v)].

NDPS Case – Acquittal – Nature of Acquittal – Trial Court found gaps in chain of custody, discrepancies regarding sample carrier and contradictions in documentary evidence – Acquittal granted by extending benefit of doubt – Held: Not an honourable acquittal on merits negating recovery – Acquittal based on technical and procedural infirmities [Paras 6-7].

Departmental Proceedings vis-à-vis Criminal Trial – Distinction – Standard of Proof – Criminal trial requires proof beyond reasonable doubt – Departmental inquiry proceeds on preponderance of probabilities/satisfaction of Inquiry Officer under Rule 16.25 PPR – Both operate in distinct spheres and serve different purposes – Acquittal in criminal case does not automatically vitiate departmental punishment [Paras 8-12].

Judicial Review – Scope under Article 226 – High Court not to act as Appellate Authority over findings of Disciplinary Authority – Interference warranted only if violation of natural justice, perversity, lack of evidence or disproportionate punishment established – Acquittal alone insufficient to set aside punishment [Paras 10-11].

Police Discipline – Dope Test – Petitioner found positive for morphine/buprenorphine during departmental proceedings – Conduct inconsistent with discipline expected of police official – Department justified in sustaining dismissal despite acquittal in criminal case [Paras 7, 13].

Guiding Principles Summarised – (i) Different standards of proof in criminal and departmental proceedings – (ii) Conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, departmental punishment based on preponderance of probabilities – (iii) High Court’s limited jurisdiction under Article 226 – (iv) Only where charges, evidence and findings are identical and acquittal is honourable, departmental action may fail – (v) Court must examine substance of criminal court findings and not merely terminology of acquittal [Para 11].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Order dated 23.06.2025 rejecting appeal against dismissal upheld – No ground for interference under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

Civil Suit – Challenge to OEA Order – Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Bar under Section 39 OCH & PFL Act – Plaintiff sought declaration that order dated 05.04.1984 passed by Tahasildar in OEA Case No.1 of 1976 under Section 5(i) of OEA Act is void – Trial Court decreed suit holding no notice issued – First Appellate Court reversed – Held: Though Section 39 bars civil court’s jurisdiction in matters triable by consolidation authorities, civil court retains jurisdiction where statutory procedure or principles of natural justice are violated – Bar not absolute [Paras 15].

Consolidation Proceedings – Effect on Revenue Proceedings – Section 4(4) and Section 51 OCH & PFL Act – Whether consolidation notification abates proceedings before revenue authorities – Held: Act does not contemplate abatement of proceedings pending before revenue authorities – Jurisdiction of OEA Collector/Tahasildar not taken away by consolidation notification – First Appellate Court rightly upheld validity of OEA proceeding [Paras 13–14].

Lease by Ex-Intermediary – Minor Lessee – Validity of Unregistered Lease Deed – Plaintiff relied on unregistered lease deed dated 13.06.1943 – First Appellate Court found plaintiff aged about 13 years at relevant time – Document contained mutilations especially regarding age – Lease found to be created and antedated after 1946 – Plaintiff failed to adduce cogent evidence – Held: Lease deed not genuine – Plaintiff’s claim of title based on fabricated document liable to fail [Paras 16–17].

Consolidation ROR – Evidentiary Value – Whether Publication Confers Title – Consolidation ROR published in favour of plaintiff prior to OEA order – Plaintiff contended non-challenge by State renders it final and binding – Held: When foundational document of title (lease) is invalid and plaintiff failed to prove possession, mere publication of ROR does not confer title – Consolidation entry cannot override valid OEA order [Paras 18].

Necessary Parties – OEA Proceeding – Successors of Ex-Intermediary – In view of finding that lease deed itself was fabricated and plaintiff failed to establish valid right, question whether successors of ex-intermediary were necessary parties rendered academic – No interference warranted [Paras 16–17].

Second Appeal – Scope of Interference – Concurrent Findings of Fact by First Appellate Court – High Court found no perversity in findings regarding fabricated lease, absence of possession, and validity of OEA proceeding – Held: No substantial question of law survives for interference – Appeal dismissed [Paras 19–20].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of learned Additional District Judge, Bhadrak in T.A. No.75/227 of 1986/87 affirmed – No order as to costs.

Succession – Intestate Male Hindu – Cognate vs Agnate – Girdhari died issueless and intestate – Plaintiff admitted son of Mohra and uterine brother of Girdhari – Defendants failed to prove they were agnates – Held: In absence of Class I, Class II heirs and agnates, cognate entitled to inherit under Section 8(d) read with Section 3(1)(c) Hindu Succession Act – First Appellate Court erred in ignoring alternative plea based on admitted facts [Paras 20-23].

Pleadings – Grant of Relief on Admitted/Proved Facts – Plaintiff pleaded he was son of Mohra and Chunia – Maternity admitted – Even if paternity disputed, uterine relationship proved – Held: Court bound to grant relief flowing from admitted facts – Appellate Court wrongly rejected alternate claim as “not pleaded” – Finding illegal and perverse [Paras 21-23].

Legitimacy – Presumption – Mohra admittedly married to Chunia – Plaintiff born from Mohra – Defendants alleged kareva marriage with Kirpa but failed to prove same – No evidence of custom or valid remarriage – Held: Presumption of legitimacy operates in favour of plaintiff – Onus to rebut not discharged [Paras 24(ii)-(iii), 25].

Evidence – Failure to Prove Kareva Marriage – Defendants set up plea of kareva between Mohra and Kirpa – No cogent evidence led – Mutation of Kirpa’s estate (Ex.P11) showed inheritance only by widow Narayani and children – Plaintiff and Mohra excluded – Conduct inconsistent with defence case – Appellate Court’s rejection of mutation on conjectures unsustainable [Paras 24(iv)].

Appreciation of Evidence – Misreading by First Appellate Court – Trial Court relied on aged independent witnesses (PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-6) who had special knowledge of family – Evidence wrongly discarded on surmises – Documentary evidence including ration card (Ex.PW5/A) duly proved – No suggestion of fabrication – Held: Appellate Court’s findings perverse [Paras 17, 24(v)-(xiii)].

Voter Lists – Evidentiary Value – Entries in voter lists showing plaintiff as son of Kirpa relied upon by defendants – Held: Voter list not conclusive proof of parentage – At best corroborative – Cannot override consistent oral and documentary evidence and statutory presumptions [Paras 24(xiii)-(xiv), 25].

Lis Pendens – Subsequent Sale – Defendants No.2 to 5 sold suit property during pendency of suit to defendants No.9 and 10 – Held: Purchasers bound by doctrine of lis pendens – Sale deed does not defeat plaintiff’s title [Paras 12, 16].

Regular Second Appeal – Scope under Section 41 Punjab Courts Act – Appeal maintainable on ground that decision contrary to law – First Appellate Court’s judgment contrary to settled principles of succession and evidence – Interference justified [Paras 28].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of First Appellate Court dated 21.08.1991 set aside – Trial Court decree dated 14.06.1988 restored – Plaintiff declared absolute owner in possession – Impugned mutation, mortgage and sale deed set aside – Pending applications disposed of.

Arbitration – Termination of Mandate vs Termination of Proceedings – Withdrawal of Sole Arbitrator due to ill-health – Mandate terminated under Section 14 – No final award or order under Section 32 – Held, mere termination of mandate does not result in termination of arbitral proceedings – Reference continues and vacancy in tribunal must be filled under Section 15(2) – Arbitration agreement subsists [Paras 21–24, 26].

Substitution of Arbitrator – Section 15(2) – Same Rules Applicable – Court held that expression “shall be appointed according to the rules applicable to the appointment of the arbitrator being replaced” means rigours of Section 11, including limitation, apply equally to appointment of substitute arbitrator – Application under Section 11 maintainable upon failure of agreed procedure through BCCI [Paras 25, 31, 34].

Limitation – Section 11(6) Petition – Applicability of Article 137 – Supreme Court in M/s Arif Azim Co. Ltd. held Article 137 (three years) applies to Section 11(6) petitions – Right to apply accrues upon failure of other party/institution after invocation – Limitation applies equally to substitute arbitrator appointment – Technical plea that no limitation applies rejected [Paras 28–33].

Exclusion and Condonation – COVID Extension – Section 14 and Section 5 Limitation Act – Period excluded pursuant to Supreme Court’s suo motu orders in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation – Further exclusion granted for bona fide prosecution of petitions under Sections 29A, 14 and 15 – Residual delay of 76 and 91 days – Held, delay condonable under Section 5 – Formal application not mandatory – Substantial justice requires continuation of arbitral reference [Paras 35–38].

Institutional Arbitration – Failure of Agreed Procedure – Applicants approached BCCI twice for substitution – No appointment made – Court observed that arbitration agreement does not come to an end due to expiry or withdrawal of arbitrator – In peculiar facts, technical objections cannot defeat adjudication of disputes on merits [Paras 25–27, 34].

Order:

(i) Delay in filing the Applications condoned –

(ii) Mr. Justice R. Y. Ganoo (Former Judge, Bombay High Court) appointed as substitute Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from Dealership Agreements dated 26 December 2012 and 9 July 2013 –

(iii) Directions issued regarding disclosure under Section 11(8) read with Section 12(1), appearance before Arbitrator, fees as per Bombay High Court (Fee Payable to Arbitrators) Rules, 2018 –

(iv) All rights and contentions kept open – Applications allowed and disposed of [Para 40].

Civil Law – Amendment of Plaint – Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Scope and Principles – Court reiterated that amendments necessary for determining real controversy should ordinarily be allowed – Hyper-technical approach to be avoided – Merits of amendment to be tested at trial – Delay alone not a ground to reject amendment – Limitation plea can be framed as issue after allowing amendment [Paras 7-10, 18-19].

Amendment Application Signed by Power of Attorney Holder – Validity – Objection that power of attorney not formally taken on record rejected – Power of attorney holder is recognised agent under Order III CPC – Plaintiff never disputed authority – Act of attorney is act of principal – Held: Application not invalid merely because POA application under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC pending [Paras 11-15].

Limitation – Entry 58 Limitation Act – Amendment Allegedly Time-Barred – Plea of limitation is mixed question of law and fact – Where dispute exists as to applicability of limitation provision, amendment cannot be rejected at threshold – Issue of limitation can be framed and decided at trial – Amendment not to be refused solely on arguable limitation ground [Paras 16-19].

Order II Rule 2 CPC – Bar of Subsequent Suit – Applicability to Amendment – Order II Rule 2 operates as bar to subsequent suit and not to amendment of pleadings in pending suit – Objection that amendment seeks to incorporate reliefs from separate suit rejected – Held: Bar under Order II Rule 2 does not eclipse power under Order VI Rule 17 CPC [Para 20].

Withdrawal of Admissions – Allegation that amendment retracts earlier pleadings – Court held consequential amendment open to defendants – No manifest injustice demonstrated – Not ground to invoke supervisory jurisdiction [Para 21].

Article 227 – Scope of Interference – Supervisory jurisdiction limited – No patent perversity or gross failure of justice found in trial Court’s order allowing amendment – High Court will not interfere merely because another view is possible [Para 23].

Decision: Miscellaneous Petitions dismissed – Order allowing amendment of plaint upheld – Pending interlocutory applications disposed of.