Civil Law – Order XXI Rule 99 CPC – Article 128 Limitation – Section 5 Inapplicable – Appeal Allowed – Respondent’s application under O.21 r.99 CPC held barred by the 30-day limitation from the date of dispossession; Section 5 does not apply to Order XXI; impugned appellate decree set aside – The Court held Article 128 governs O.21 r.99 applications and mandates a strict 30-day period from dispossession; exclusion under Section 5 being expressly barred in Order XXI, delay could not be condoned – Decision: Appeal succeeds; First Appellate Court’s judgment set aside; no costs [Paras 12, 14-15].

Limitation – Section 14(2) Limitation Act – Exclusion of Time – Simultaneous Proceedings – Benefit Denied – The respondent first moved under O.21 r.97 (pre-dispossession) and, while that was pending, filed O.21 r.99 (post-dispossession); Section 14(2) exclusion applies when the earlier proceeding is prosecuted with due diligence and good faith but fails for “defect of jurisdiction or other cause of like nature” and, ordinarily, after its disposal – On facts, simultaneous invocation of O.21 rr.97 and 99 could not attract Section 14(2); exclusion denied [Paras 12-13].

Execution – Meaning of “Dispossession” and Maintainability under O.21 r.99 – Article 128 Clock – The Court noted the sequence: dispossession delivered in execution on 19.08.2008; O.21 r.99 application filed on 08.01.2009 – Held, even assuming dispossession within the meaning of O.21 r.99, the application was time-barred under Article 128; Section 14(2) not available; therefore merits of title/possession controversies did not survive for decision [Paras 9, 12, 14-15].

Property Law – Unilateral Cancellation of Registered Sale Deed – Observations of Courts Below – Trial court found unilateral cancellation deed legally ineffectual and First Appellate Court accepted passing of title; High Court refrained from re-opening these aspects in view of its limitation finding – Outcome turned solely on limitation under Article 128 and the non-applicability of Section 14(2) on the facts [Paras 5, 7, 15].

Decision – Second Appeal Allowed – Impugned judgment and decree set aside – No order as to costs [Para 15].

Public Interest Litigation – Road Safety – Median Cut Closure – Dismissal of PIL – The petitioner sought reopening of a median cut on National Highway No. 44 near village Khari, which was earlier closed due to safety concerns following accidents – The National Highways Authority of India submitted that the closure was based on recommendations from a Road Safety Audit Report in accordance with MoRTH guidelines – Held: The Court found no reason to interfere with expert advice taken for public safety – Mere inconvenience due to an alternative cut being 1.5 km away was not a sufficient ground to reopen the closed median cut [Paras 1-6].

Judicial Review – Role of Courts in Expert Decisions – Limited Scope – The Court reiterated that judicial review does not extend to substituting expert opinion with judicial wisdom, especially in matters involving technical expertise and road safety audits – Held: Courts should defer to technical assessments unless manifestly arbitrary or mala fide – Petition rightly dismissed [Para 5].

Public Safety vs Local Convenience – Balancing Interests – Median Cut Closure Justified – Though the petitioner cited inconvenience to villagers due to distant alternate routes, the Court observed that safety considerations on a National Highway override such inconvenience – The closure was deemed in public interest to avoid accidents – Petition dismissed accordingly [Paras 4-6].

Final Decision – Petition Dismissed – The High Court declined to entertain the PIL citing valid expert recommendation and public safety grounds – No interference warranted – Petition dismissed [Para 7].

Criminal Law – Murder, Extortion, Conspiracy – Section 302, 120-B IPC & Arms Act – Partial Relief – Trial Court convicted Pradeep (A1) for murder, conspiracy, extortion and Arms Act offences, and Divya (A2) for conspiracy and destruction of evidence – On appeal, Court upheld conviction of Pradeep based on ransom calls, eyewitness account, and ballistic evidence – However, Divya was acquitted, as mere illicit relationship and phone conversations were insufficient to prove conspiracy – Appeal of Pradeep dismissed, appeal of Divya allowed [Paras 22-79, Order].

Criminal Trial – Circumstantial Evidence – Section 302 IPC – Conviction Upheld – The case was based on ransom calls, threatening messages, and eyewitness account – Recovery of pistol and bullets linked to fatal shot through ballistic report – Test identification parade corroborated – Held: Prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant Pradeep committed murder of Jitendra Bhatiya – Conviction under Section 302 IPC affirmed [Paras 22-64].

Electronic Evidence – Admissibility – Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act – Certificates Issued by Nodal Officers Valid – Defence challenged CDRs and SDRs for want of compliance – Court held certificates fulfilled requirements of Section 65-B – Electronic evidence admissible and reliable – Supported case of ransom calls and threats by appellant Pradeep [Paras 30-39].

Test Identification Parade – Delay – Evidentiary Value – P.W.12 identified accused after one month – Defence raised objection of dilution – Court held parade was properly conducted, and witness had ample opportunity to see accused at close distance – Identification accepted as trustworthy [Paras 46-53].

Conspiracy – Section 120-B IPC – Insufficient Evidence Against Wife – Prosecution relied on alleged illicit relations between Pradeep and Divya and claimed financial assistance by Divya – Court held mere relationship does not prove conspiracy – No overt act attributable to Divya – Benefit of doubt granted – Conviction set aside [Paras 65-79].

Confessional Statement – Section 164 CrPC – Statement Recorded by Special Executive Magistrate – Inadmissible – Court reiterated that only Judicial Magistrate (F.C.) or Metropolitan Magistrate can record such confessions – Statements discarded [Para 69].

Decision – Criminal Appeal No.364/2017 (Pradeep) dismissed – Conviction and life sentence upheld – Criminal Appeal No.345/2017 (Divya) allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 120-B and 201 IPC quashed – Divya acquitted and set at liberty [Order, Paras 79].

Criminal Writ - Child Custody – Habeas Corpus – Biological Parent vs. Grandparent – Petitioner, biological father and natural guardian, sought custody of son from maternal grandmother – Respondent contended emotional bond, financial incapacity of father, and pending custody proceedings – Held: Biological parents’ right to custody prevails unless welfare of child is demonstrably at risk – Grandparent has no superior right over natural guardian – Custody directed to be restored to petitioner [Paras 12-14, 16].

Maintainability – Habeas Corpus vs. Guardians and Wards Act – Pendency of custody proceedings before Family Court no bar – Writ jurisdiction may be exercised in exceptional cases where detention is unlawful – Habeas Corpus maintainable where biological parent is deprived of custody by third party – Supreme Court precedents in Tejaswini Gaud (2019) 7 SCC 42 and Gautam Kumar Das (2024 INSC 610) applied [Paras 10-12, 14].

Welfare of Child – Paramount Consideration – Petitioner and wife living together, gainfully employed – Already caring for twin brother suffering from cerebral palsy – Nothing on record to show incapacity – Property disputes irrelevant – Welfare best served in custody of parents – Adjustment difficulties temporary – Welfare safeguarded with visitation rights to grandmother [Paras 12-14, 17].

Visitation Rights – To balance child’s welfare and existing bond with grandmother, respondent no. 5 allowed weekday visitation (9:00 am to 6:00 pm) at petitioner’s residence for three months – Respondent nos. 6 to 8 permitted to accompany – Petitioner directed to cooperate [Para 17].

Decision – Petition partly allowed – Police directed to secure custody of minor from respondent no. 5 and hand over to petitioner within two weeks – Visitation rights granted – No order as to costs [Paras 16-18].

Criminal Revision – Charges under Sections 143, 341, 323, 336 & 307 IPC – Partial Relief – Petitioners challenged order framing charges including Section 307 IPC – Court held: prima facie case under Sections 143, 341, 323 and 336 IPC made out – However, no material showing intention or knowledge necessary for attempt to murder – Charge under Section 307 IPC quashed – Case transferred to CJM, Bhilwara for trial of remaining offences [Paras 18-24].

Framing of Charges – Limited Scope of Judicial Review – Sections 227 & 228 CrPC – At stage of framing charge, Court cannot weigh evidence but must ensure prima facie case – Suspicion alone insufficient; there must be grave suspicion – Trial Court erred in framing charge under Section 307 without prima facie ingredients – Revision partly allowed [Paras 19-22].

Attempt to Murder – Section 307 IPC – Essential Ingredients Missing – Injuries on complainant Mustak and others were simple, caused by blunt objects like lathi and stones – No repeated blows on vital parts, no sharp weapons, no premeditation or motive shown – Incident was sudden fight – Held: necessary mens rea absent – Offence under Section 307 IPC not made out even prima facie [Paras 17-18, 23].

Unlawful Assembly and Simple Hurt – Sections 143, 341, 323, 336 IPC – Sustained – Witness statements and injury reports show petitioners voluntarily caused simple hurt, restrained complainants, and endangered safety by pelting stones – Prima facie offences under these provisions made out – Charges under these sections upheld [Paras 10, 23-24].

Decision – Order framing charge under Section 307 IPC set aside – Petitioners discharged from offence under Section 307 – Charges under Sections 143, 341, 323, and 336 IPC maintained – Case transferred to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara for trial – Revision petition disposed of accordingly [Paras 24-25].

Civil Law – Suit for Damages - Carrier’s Liability – Damage During Transit – Admitted Loss – Decree Upheld - Appellants (transporters) were held liable for damage to 171 packages of viscose fiber during shipment from Calcutta to Ludhiana – Defendants themselves admitted damage in Exhibit P3 – Held: Admission of damage and quantum sufficient to justify decree; plea of “act of God” unsubstantiated – No perversity found in lower courts’ findings [Paras 3-6].

Act of God Defence – No Evidence – Adverse Inference Drawn - Appellants contended damage occurred due to flash floods between Rajpura and Ludhiana – However, no driver or cleaner was examined – DW-1 (Manager) had no personal knowledge – Held: Mere pleading of natural calamity insufficient; non-examination of key witnesses warrants adverse inference under law [Paras 7-8].

Quantum of Compensation – Surveyor Not Examined – Reliance on Defendants’ Own Letter - Though the Surveyor’s report was not formally proved, the Appellate Court rightly relied on Exhibit P3 issued by defendants admitting loss of ₹70,000 – Trial Court awarded ₹1,00,000 (including interest); Appellate Court modified it to ₹86,110 plus future interest at 12% p.a. – Held: Compensation rightly adjusted based on reliable admission [Paras 5-6].

Final Disposition – No Substantial Question of Law – Appeal Dismissed - The High Court affirmed Appellate Court’s reasoning and found no illegality or perversity – Held: No substantial question of law involved; second appeal dismissed as meritless [Paras 8-9].

Real Estate Regulation – Interest for Delay – Section 18(1)(a) RERA – Interest is Automatic – Tribunal justified in awarding interest for delay in possession without inquiry – Delay in possession admitted by promoter – Interest for period 01.01.2020 to 13.10.2022 rightly granted at MCLR + 1% – Held: Section 18(1)(a) is mandatory in nature and operates without need for further adjudication where delay is established – Interpretation of phrase “as the case may be” limited to eventualities within Section 18 itself [Paras 25–32].

Appellate Tribunal Powers – Jurisdiction under Sections 44(6) and 53 – Tribunal Not Bound by CPC – Tribunal has power to grant appropriate relief including awarding interest – Held: Tribunal rightly exercised powers to modify Adjudicating Officer’s order and award interest instead of compensation – Exercise of power in conformity with object of Act and guided by principles of natural justice [Paras 26–32].

Statutory Pre-Deposit – Section 43(5) RERA – Appropriation Valid – Pre-deposit can be appropriated toward interest payable to allottee – Held: Pre-deposit is not merely procedural but represents part payment of liability – Tribunal rightly directed release of amount to allottee after verification – Refund permissible only if amount exceeds liability [Paras 33–38].

Maintainability of Appeal – Challenge to Interest on Admitted Delay – Appeal Not Maintainable – No substantial question of law involved – Held: Where facts such as date of agreement, delay, and possession are undisputed, Tribunal’s award of interest cannot be challenged under Section 58 read with Section 100 CPC – Appeal lies only on substantial question of law – Admission of delay precludes challenge [Paras 39–43].

Final Decision – All Appeals Dismissed – Promoter’s appeals dismissed for lack of merit – Allottee’s appeal also dismissed due to absence of arguments for compensation – Held: Tribunal's orders justified in law and fact – No substantial question of law arises [Para 43].

Cheque Dishonour – Sections 138, 139 NI Act – Presumption of Legally Enforceable Debt – Conviction Upheld – Petitioner admitted issuance and signatures on cheque; defence of blank cheques misused found improbable; no legal action taken against complainant for alleged misuse – Held: Presumption under Sections 118(a) & 139 NI Act unrebutted – Conviction justified [Paras 7-9].

Blank Cheque – Presumption – Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar Applied – A voluntarily signed blank cheque, handed over towards some payment, attracts presumption under Section 139 NI Act – Petitioner failed to prove absence of debt/liability – Mere denial insufficient [Para 9].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope under Section 397 Cr.P.C. – Limited Interference – High Court may interfere only in case of palpable error, illegality, or perversity – No such infirmity found; concurrent findings affirmed [Paras 10-11].

Decision – Revision Petition dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 138 NI Act maintained – Petitioner directed to comply with trial court’s order [Paras 11-13].

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance – Criminal Revision – Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Order of Family Court quashed – Petitioner-husband challenged order directing him to pay ₹20,000 per month – High Court found Family Court failed to consider suppression of material facts, income and assets of parties, and mandatory guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha – Held: impugned order suffers from illegality and impropriety, set aside; matter remanded for fresh decision after affidavits of assets/liabilities [Paras 29-34].

Second Marriage & Alleged Fraud – Divorcee status disclosed in matrimonial site – Affidavit of “unmarried” not fraudulent – Husband married with full knowledge of prior divorce – No illegality or fraud committed by wife [Paras 15-18].

Entitlement to Maintenance – Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. – Wife alleged cruelty and dowry demand; delay of 16 months in lodging FIR casts doubt – Evidence of desertion without just cause relevant – Court emphasized contemporaneous evidence is critical in disputes of cruelty/desertion [Paras 12-14, 24].

Capacity to Maintain Herself – Wife holding M.Sc. in Botany, diploma in Japanese – Capable of earning – Concealed receipt of ₹40 lakhs alimony from first husband – Suppression of material facts disentitles equitable relief – Courts must consider earning potential and assets while fixing quantum [Paras 19-20, 25-28, 30].

Guidelines in Maintenance Proceedings – Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 – Affidavits of assets/liabilities mandatory for fair adjudication – Failure by Family Court to apply guidelines vitiated order [Paras 22-23, 29].

Decision: Revisional application allowed – Impugned order dated 24/05/2024 set aside – Matter remanded to Family Court, Saran at Chapra, to direct both parties to file affidavits of assets and liabilities within four weeks and decide afresh within four weeks thereafter [Paras 31-34].