Trial Court’s marking of public document post-evidence closure without allowing rebuttal – Procedural impropriety partly corrected by High Court under Article 227.

Civil Procedure – Acceptance of Document Post Evidence Closure – Article 227 – CMP Partially Allowed - The petitioners (defendants) challenged the Trial Court's order marking the certified copy of the R.o.R. as Ext.25 after the closure of evidence, without giving them an opportunity to rebut – Opponent argued that being a public document, it could be accepted even at the argument stage under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC – Held: While the marking of the document was legally permissible, it was essential for the Trial Court to provide an opportunity to the other side to adduce rebuttal evidence in compliance with natural justice – CMP allowed in part, with direction to the Trial Court to permit rebuttal evidence and dispose of the suit within 3 months from production of this order [Paras 3-7].

Quash Petition – Corruption Allegations – Section 482 CrPC – Alleged Conspiracy in Purchase of Fogging Machines – Quash Rejected – Petitioners, former Executive Officers of Salem District Town Panchayats, sought quashing of proceedings in Spl.C.C.Nos.1–3 of 2024 arising from Crime No.3 of 2021 under PC Act and IPC offences – Allegation: machines purchased at inflated rates in collusion with traders, violating tender norms, causing loss to Panchayat funds – Defence: procedure followed, sanction obtained, prices comparable to GeM portal and other Panchayats, selective prosecution, absence of dishonest intention – Held: Grounds raised are factual and disputed, malice or arbitrariness can only be tested at trial – Sufficient materials exist in charge sheet, cognizance properly taken – No case for quashing [Paras 2–3, 6–7, 16–22].

Public Servant Misconduct – Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 – Section 13(1)(a) – Entrustment and Misappropriation – Petitioners argued absence of dishonest intention, citing audit clearance and departmental approvals – Held: Whether purchases were dishonest, collusive, or in violation of MRP directions are factual issues requiring evidence – Audit clearance not conclusive to absolve criminal liability – Prima facie case made out in charge sheet [Paras 8–11, 16–21].

Selective Prosecution – Allegation of Mala Fide and Arbitrariness – 180 Panchayats purchased machines at similar prices but no action taken – Petitioners claimed abuse of process – Held: Selective targeting and mala fides are matters of trial, not for consideration at quash stage – Petitioners failed to produce unimpeachable material warranting interference [Paras 6, 15, 22].

Quash Petition – Scope under Section 482 CrPC – Judicial Interference – Court reiterated that disputed factual issues, motive, and conspiracy cannot be assessed at the pre-trial stage – As charge sheet supported by sanction, witness statements and documents, no ground to quash prosecution – Petitions dismissed [Paras 21–23].

Decision: All Criminal Original Petitions dismissed – Connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions closed – Trial Court directed to proceed uninfluenced by observations in this order [Para 23].

Civil Appeal – Money suit on promissory note – Presumption under Section 118 NI Act upheld – Defendant failed to rebut presumption – Appeal dismissed, trial court decree confirmed.

Promissory Note – Execution and Consideration – Ex.A.1 promissory note signed, thumb-marked, and stamped by defendant – Attesting witness (P.W.2) and scribe (P.W.3) supported plaintiff’s case – Defendant admitted signature but failed to prove absence of consideration – Presumption under Section 118(a) NI Act stands unrebutted – Plaintiff proved lending of ₹6,77,500 under Ex.A.1 [Paras 17–19, 25–28].

Pleadings – Capacity to Lend – Defendant’s plea of plaintiff’s incapacity to lend rejected – No pleading in written statement nor evidence adduced – Mere assertion at appellate stage not maintainable [Para 20].

Burden of Proof – Principle reiterated – Plaintiff discharged initial burden by proving execution; onus shifted to defendant to disprove consideration – Defendant failed to bring forth probable circumstances to rebut presumption [Paras 21–24].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Decree in O.S. No. 74 of 2008 dated 09.02.2011 confirmed – Interim orders vacated, pending petitions closed – No costs [Paras 29–30].

Service Law – Termination of University Employee – Mala fides and Vindictiveness – Fourth termination order challenged – Allegations of forged Ph.D. degree and misuse of salutation “Dr.” – Petitioner denied ever submitting any Ph.D. certificate – Proceedings found to be initiated only after petitioner lodged sexual harassment complaint against Registrar – Held: Proceedings actuated by mala fide intent, bias, and extraneous considerations – Termination unsustainable – Writ Petition Allowed [Paras 52–63].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Proof of Misconduct – Requirement of Cogent Evidence – Mere mention of “pursuing Ph.D.” in CV does not amount to false claim – No material produced to show petitioner gained appointment/promotion using alleged fake degree – Findings based on conjectures cannot constitute misconduct [Paras 53–61].

Bias and Abuse of Power – Initiation of Proceedings after Complaint Against Registrar – Vindictive Approach – Courts have held mala fide and biased disciplinary proceedings void ab initio – Registrar acted with personal enmity; authorities misused process – Proceedings vitiated [Paras 55–59].

Doctrine of Proportionality – Misconduct Must Be Grave, Supported by Evidence – Courts can interfere if punishment shocks conscience – In present case, no misconduct proved; dismissal wholly disproportionate and arbitrary [Paras 47–51].

Decision – Impugned termination order dated 14.12.2024 quashed – Petitioner entitled to reinstatement with consequential benefits – Writ Petition Allowed [Paras 62–63].

Anticipatory Bail – Forged Court Order – BNSS S.215 and Territorial Jurisdiction – Application Rejected – Applicant sought pre-arrest bail in FIR alleging fabrication of a JMFC Pune order used to secure advantage in prior proceedings – Held: Vimantal PS could register/investigate despite territorial objections; S.215 BNSS inapplicable as the forged “order” was never part of JMFC court record (not custodia legis); distinct causes of action permit parallel FIRs – Gravity of offence and potential impact on investigation militate against anticipatory bail [Paras 9–11, 12–15, 17–18].

Territorial Jurisdiction – FIR registration and investigation not confined at threshold to strict territorial bounds – Police cannot refuse to register; if post-investigation another station has jurisdiction, FIR may be forwarded – Applied Satvinder Kaur – Objection to Vimantal PS rejected [Para 9–10].

BNSS S.215 (akin to CrPC S.195) – When bar applies – Offences “in relation to” documents produced/given in evidence in court (custodia legis) – Here, the so-called JMFC “order” was not on JMFC record; it was a fabricated document later shown in High Court – Bar inapplicable – Iqbal Singh Marwah followed [Para 11].

Multiplicity of FIRs – Registry-lodged FIR at Azad Maidan PS (production before High Court) and Vimantal PS FIR (preparation/use intended to derail C.R. 142/2022) – Overlapping facts but distinct causes of action – Separate investigation permissible; possible amalgamation later left open – Objection that “same offence – two FIRs” rejected [Paras 12–13].

Evidentiary Context – JMFC Pune’s order on Exh. 88 clarifying no such order dated 13/12/2024 exists; margin on final-report page was blank – Indicates fabrication; forged text suggested acceptance of S.169 CrPC report to cancel bonds – Demonstrates intent to terminate proceedings in C.R. 142/2022 [Paras 7(v)–(vi), 7(i)–(iii)].

Gravity and Custodial Interrogation – Forgery of court order strikes at administration of justice; anticipatory bail is exceptional – Risk of hampering investigation/tampering with evidence – Supreme Court guidance in Nikita Jagganath Shetty applied – Custodial interrogation warranted [Paras 14–15].

Decision – Anticipatory Bail Application rejected; interim application(s), if any, disposed of as infructuous [Paras 17–19].

Civil Procedure – Permanent Injunction – Ownership and Possession Dispute – Regular Second Appeal against concurrent findings of fact – Plaintiffs claimed ownership of plots 57, 58, 59 through sale deeds and sought injunction against defendants’ alleged attempt to carve passage – Trial Court dismissed suit, First Appellate Court partly decreed only portion BCEX based on defendants’ admission – High Court upheld concurrent findings – Held: Plaintiffs failed to establish title and possession over entire claimed land – No interference warranted under Section 100 CPC [Paras 3–7, 13–20].

Evidence – Parchi Allotments and Site Plans – Plaintiffs relied on allotment parchis and private site plan (Ex.P-2) without demarcation – Court held parchis showed only area, no boundaries/dimensions – Failure to link claimed land to purchased plots weakened case – Local Commissioner’s site plan (Ex.D-7) prepared in presence of parties accepted as reliable – Plaintiffs’ plan rejected [Paras 9–14].

Admissions – Effect of Witness Statements – Plaintiffs’ own witnesses admitted existence of street and boundary walls between properties – Appellate Court relied on such admissions to hold defendants’ possession lawful – Such admissions corroborated Local Commissioner’s findings – Appeal dismissed [Paras 15–16].

Scope of Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings of Fact – High Court reiterated limited scope of interference under Section 100 CPC – Findings based on reliable evidence including Local Commissioner’s report and witness admissions – No perversity or substantial question of law arose – Appeal dismissed [Paras 18–20].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Judgment of First Appellate Court dated 16.11.1999 affirmed – Permanent injunction limited to portion BCEX – Plaintiffs’ claim over rest of land rejected – No order as to costs [Para 20].

Bail – SC/ST Act – Mandatory Notice to Victim – Bail Cancelled – The accused Vishal @ Vicky Sodhi was granted bail by the Additional Sessions Judge without issuing notice to the victim or his dependents as mandated under Section 15-A(3) and (5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – The High Court held that such notice is mandatory and the failure to serve it renders the bail order invalid – Bail granted on 11.02.2025 was therefore quashed – Accused directed to surrender before Jail Authorities [Paras 5, 9-13].

Guardianship Proceedings – Death of Ward Rendered Petitions Infructuous – LPAs Challenging Interim Orders Not Maintainable – Held: Guardianship Petition became infructuous after demise of DMP – Orders passed therein including appointment of Sole Guardian were temporary and cease to operate upon final orders in probate proceedings [Paras 1-4, 13, 14, 20, 26]

Probate Proceedings – Testamentary Disputes – No Interference by Appellate Court – Held: Pending probate petition appropriate forum to determine validity of Will – Any direction for administration of estate must await adjudication of probate petition – Appellate Court refrains from commenting on merits [Paras 21-25]

Status Quo Orders – Management of Deceased’s Estate – Validity of Orders Post Demise – Continuity Affirmed – Held: Status quo directions passed by LSJ concerning movable and immovable properties and financial assets of DMP to continue until varied by orders in probate proceedings [Paras 14, 26]

Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Improper Application – Order Set Aside – Held: Plaintiff’s case not wholly barred – Suit discloses cause of action and alternative reliefs including partition – Probate pendency not ground to reject plaint – Rejection of plaint unsustainable in law [Paras 28-70]

Declaratory Suit – Consequential Relief – Not Always Mandatory – Plaintiff in Possession – Held: When plaintiff is in possession or properties are under Court’s custodia legis, suit for declaration without further relief is maintainable – Plaintiff’s failure to claim refund of Stridhan not fatal [Paras 35, 39-50]

Alternative Relief – Partition of Property – Acceptable Even Without Detailed Foundation – Held: Plaintiff entitled to seek partition in alternative to ownership – Absence of foundational facts not fatal at preliminary stage – Rejection on such grounds premature [Paras 42-44, 53-54]

Limitation – Cause of Action Commences Upon Death of Deceased – Held: Plaintiff’s right to sue arose upon death of DMP – Earlier allotment of shares to children or formation of companies not relevant to limitation – Rejection on limitation ground unjustified [Paras 45-46, 56]

Probate Petition – Suit for Ownership Not Barred – Scope of Civil Court Not Ousted – Held: Civil suit for ownership and partition of properties not barred merely due to pendency of probate – Challenge to Will can be stayed but not rejected outright [Paras 43, 54]

Rejection of Plaint – Only Entire Plaint Can Be Rejected – No Partial Rejection Permissible – Held: Order VII Rule 11 does not contemplate partial rejection – Rejection of only certain prayers improper in law [Paras 43, 60, 62]

Decision – Appeals Partly Allowed – Rejection of Plaint Set Aside – All LPAs and FAO(OS) 38/2024 Dismissed as Infructuous – Civil Suit Restored – Ordered to be Consolidated with Pending Probate Proceedings – Held: Impugned Order rejecting plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is set aside – Suit revived – Proceedings to be consolidated with Probate Petition TEST.CAS. 1/2022 before learned Single Judge on 23.09.2025 [Paras 70-71]

Civil Law - Execution of decree for injunction – Executing Court wrongly dismissed application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC – High Court held even prohibitory injunction enforceable in execution; demarcation can be directed – Order set aside, matter remanded [Paras 7–13].

Civil Procedure – Order 21 Rule 32 CPC – A decree for permanent injunction can be executed by attachment, detention, or restitution – Decree-holder need not file fresh suit for possession if judgment debtor violates decree by encroachment – Remedy lies in execution itself – Toran Singh v. Imrat Singh, 2012 (3) MPLJ 385 followed [Paras 7–9, 12].

Meaning of “wilful disobedience” – Requires proof of knowledge of decree, opportunity to obey, and deliberate defiance – Mere inadvertent act not enough – Burden lies on decree-holder – Karnataka rulings in Shivamurthy v. Dannammadevi Cycle Mart, AIR 1987 Kar 261 and Kariyappa v. Haladappa, AIR 1989 Kar 163 applied [Paras 7–9].

Prohibitory injunction – Enforceability – Explanation to Order 21 Rule 32(5) (added by 2002 CPC Amendment) makes clear that prohibitory injunctions too are enforceable in execution – Law Commission intent was to avoid multiplicity of suits – Court bound to give effect to decree, not drive decree-holder to new litigation [Paras 8–9, 12].

Error of Executing Court – Executing Court wrongly held that it could not go beyond decree and that possession relief was outside scope – High Court clarified that Executing Court has power to restore possession where decree violated – Impugned order unsustainable [Paras 12–13].

Demarcation – Where dispute arises as to location/identity of land, Executing Court can direct demarcation by revenue authorities before enforcing decree – Necessary for determining whether obstruction (“Muram”) lies on suit land or adjoining land [Paras 11, 13].

Inherent powers – Section 151 CPC – Even apart from express powers, Court has inherent duty to prevent frustration of decrees – Power to “put clock back” where decree violated – Surjit Pal v. Prabir Kumar Sun, AIR 1986 Cal 220; Hari Nandan Agrawal v. S.N. Pandita, AIR 1975 All 482 cited [Para 8].

Disposition – Revision allowed – Impugned order dated 05.01.2023 set aside – Matter remanded to Executing Court to get demarcation done through revenue authorities and then enforce decree under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC – Miscellaneous applications closed [Paras 12–14]