Family Law – DNA Test – Adultery – Divorce Proceedings – Direction for DNA Test – Legitimacy of Child – Presumption under Section 112 Evidence Act – Wife challenged Family Court order permitting DNA test of child to determine paternity – Husband sought DNA test not to dispute legitimacy but to prove adultery – Held: Where adultery is pleaded with specific averments of non-access, DNA test may be directed in appropriate cases – Presumption under Section 112 not absolute in such circumstances [Paras 6, 11–13].

Evidence Act – Section 112 – Presumption of Legitimacy – Scope – Presumption can be rebutted only by proof of non-access – Non-access implies impossibility and not mere difficulty of access – In present case, pleadings disclosed prima facie non-access at time of conception – Family Court justified in permitting DNA test [Paras 8, 11–12].

DNA Test – Right to Privacy vs. Administration of Justice – Courts must avoid DNA testing as routine – However, where DNA test is only effective means to establish adultery and no declaration of illegitimacy is sought, privacy concerns yield to truth-finding – Reliance placed on Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy [Paras 6–7, 9–10].

Adultery – Proof – Evidentiary Necessity – Husband in Indian Army pleaded specific facts regarding short visit, immediate disclosure of pregnancy, and premature delivery inconsistent with biological possibility – DNA test held to be most legitimate and scientific method to establish or rebut allegation of adultery [Paras 12–13].

Distinction – Legitimacy vs. Infidelity – DNA Test – Judgments in Aparna Ajinkya Firodia, Ivan Rathinam and R. Rajendran distinguished – Held: Those cases involved direct challenge to legitimacy or different factual matrices – Dipanwita Roy applies where DNA test is incidental to adjudication of adultery [Paras 7–10].

Refusal to Undergo DNA Test – Adverse Inference – If wife refuses to comply with DNA testing, Family Court entitled to draw adverse presumption under Section 114(h) Evidence Act or corresponding provisions of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 [Para 14].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Order of Family Court directing DNA test upheld – Family Court at liberty to draw adverse inference if petitioner refuses DNA test [Paras 13–14].

SARFAESI Act – Appeal under Section 18 – Pre-deposit Requirement – Borrower or Guarantor – Petitioner, a tenant and allottee under Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement, challenged DRAT order insisting on deposit of 40% of outstanding loan amount – Held: Proviso to Section 18 mandating pre-deposit applies only to borrower or guarantor and not to any other aggrieved person – DRAT erred in imposing pre-deposit condition [Paras 4, 7, 11, 13].

Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal – Jurisdictional Error – Self-operating Clause – Appeal dismissed for non-deposit pursuant to DRAT order – Since pre-deposit condition itself was unsustainable in law, rejection of appeal on that basis held illegal – Appeal liable to be revived [Paras 3, 14].

Tenant’s Rights – Redevelopment – Competing Claims to Flat – Petitioner tenant alleged fraud by developer by allotting same flat to him under PAAA and simultaneously selling it to borrowers who availed loan – Held: Such disputed questions to be examined on merits by DRT/DRAT – Not relevant for deciding limited issue of pre-deposit [Paras 8–10, 12].

Precedent – Binding Nature – Division Bench of Bombay High Court and Supreme Court – Reliance placed on Anchor Electricals Pvt. Ltd. v. Canara Bank, Sidha Neelkanth Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Prudent ARC Ltd., and Delhi High Court judgments – Law well settled that pre-deposit under Section 18 cannot be insisted upon from a non-borrower, non-guarantor appellant [Paras 4–7, 13].

Writ Jurisdiction – Limited Interference – Question of Law – Since issue of applicability of pre-deposit was no longer res integra, writ petition entertained and allowed – DRAT directed to hear appeal on merits without insisting on pre-deposit [Paras 13–15].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned order dated 26.06.2025 passed by DRAT, Mumbai quashed and set aside – Appeal restored and revived – DRAT directed to consider appeal and interim application on merits without insisting on any pre-deposit – Interim application to be decided expeditiously.

Service Law – Police Personnel – Unauthorized Absence – Removal from Service – Judicial Review – Petitioner, a PAC Constable, removed from service for unauthorized absence of 160 days after departmental inquiry – Appellate and revisional authorities affirmed removal – Writ petition challenged legality of punishment, inquiry findings and proportionality [Paras 2, 11, 15-19].

Alternative Remedy – Delay in Raising Objection – Maintainability of Writ Petition – Objection of availability of alternative remedy before U.P. Public Service Tribunal raised after 21 years – Pleadings complete and writ entertained long back – Held: Writ not liable to be dismissed on ground of alternative remedy at belated stage [Paras 12-14].

Departmental Inquiry – Procedural Fairness – Opportunity of Hearing – Chargesheet issued, witnesses examined and opportunity of cross-examination granted – Petitioner chose not to cross-examine prosecution witnesses – Inquiry not vitiated on ground of violation of principles of natural justice [Paras 4-5, 21].

Unauthorized Absence – Illness and Compelling Circumstances – Appreciation of Evidence – Petitioner relied on medical certificates and plea of collapse of house – Inquiry Officer found contradictions between pleas, absence of hospitalisation, non-coverage of entire period and lack of contemporaneous intimation – Held: Findings based on evidence and not perverse – High Court cannot reappreciate evidence in writ jurisdiction [Paras 6-8, 25-28, 43-46].

Police Regulations 381 & 382 – Nature and Effect – Regulations are administrative instructions without statutory force – Non-compliance may raise doubt but is not conclusive – However, in present case, even ignoring strict applicability, petitioner failed to justify prolonged absence after fitness certificate – Regulations treated as directory [Paras 32, 46].

Unauthorized Absence – Willfulness – Scope of Krushna Kant B. Parmar Doctrine – Absence due to compelling circumstances may not be wilful – However, principle not absolute – Long unauthorized absence without satisfactory explanation can constitute misconduct – Supreme Court decisions in Krushna Kant B. Parmar and T.T. Murali Babu harmoniously explained and applied [Paras 33-40].

Judicial Review – Limits under Article 226 – High Court not an appellate authority over disciplinary findings – Interference permissible only in cases of perversity, no evidence, procedural illegality or disproportionate punishment – Reliance placed on Railways v. Rajendra Kumar Dubey and allied precedents [Paras 41-42].

Past Conduct – Reference in Punishment Order – Double Jeopardy – Past misconduct not made a charge – Mere reference to past conduct permissible to add weight, if punishment founded independently on proved charge – No violation of principles of double jeopardy or natural justice [Paras 52-55].

Inquiry Officer – Recommendation on Punishment – Validity – Appendix-I to Rule 14(1) of 1991 Rules permits recommendation, but requires it to be made separately – Composite inquiry report containing recommendation held defective – Recommendation beyond permissible manner influenced disciplinary process – Held in favour of petitioner [Paras 56-57].

Punishment – Proportionality – Long Service and Subsequent Developments – Petitioner reinstated under interim order, served till superannuation, promoted as Head Constable and drawing provisional pension – Removal from service held disproportionate in peculiar facts – Court justified in interfering with quantum of punishment [Paras 59-61].

Relief – Remand on Quantum of Punishment – Orders of removal, appeal and revision set aside – Matter remanded to disciplinary authority to impose any punishment other than dismissal/removal – Fresh decision on salary for period of unauthorized absence directed after notice – Post-retiral dues to be recalculated and released within stipulated time [Paras 62-65].

Decision: Writ petition partly allowed – Removal from service set aside – Matter remanded to disciplinary authority for reconsideration of punishment in accordance with law – Directions issued for timely compliance.

Specific Performance – Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – High Court reiterated that interference in second appeal is permissible only when findings of the First Appellate Court are perverse, based on no evidence, inadmissible evidence, or contrary to settled principles of law – Reappreciation of evidence not permissible [Paras 16, 31].

Specific Performance of Contract – Registered Possessory Agreement of Sale – Agreement of sale dated 09.03.1979 duly registered – Entire sale consideration paid and possession delivered on date of agreement – Certified copy admissible where original lost in cyclone – Execution of agreement not disputed by executant’s legal representatives – Decree for specific performance upheld [Paras 19, 22, 24].

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 16(c) – Readiness and Willingness – Plaintiff proved oral demand for execution of sale deed during vendor’s lifetime and thereafter from legal representatives – Defendants 1 and 2 remained ex parte and did not dispute readiness and willingness – Requirement of notice held satisfied on facts [Paras 18–21].

Locus Standi – Third Party to Contract – Defendant No.3 not a party to the agreement of sale – Held, such defendant has no locus to challenge decree of specific performance granted against vendors’ legal representatives – Decree having attained finality as defendants 1 and 2 did not appeal [Paras 17, 22, 30].

Possession – Permissive Possession vs. Tenancy – Defendant No.3 claimed tenancy under original owner but failed to establish tenancy by evidence – Plaintiff proved permissive occupation after borrowing of money – Permissive possessor liable to vacate upon termination of permission [Paras 25, 29, 30].

Evidence – Conduct of Parties – Adverse Inference – Legal representatives of executant neither contested nor entered witness box – Presumption drawn against denial of execution and obligation to execute sale deed [Paras 20, 21].

Eviction – Consequential Relief – Once plaintiff held entitled to specific performance and execution of sale deed, permissive occupant/defendant No.3 liable to be evicted from suit schedule property [Paras 30].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court confirmed – No substantial question of law involved – Parties directed to bear their own costs

Writ Jurisdiction – Suspension of Membership – Society Dispute – Petitioner, a member of Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce, suspended pending inquiry on allegations of misconduct and complaints of financial irregularities – Petitioner submitted representation expressing regret, willingness to tender unconditional apology and withdraw allegations – Primary question whether writ court should intervene or relegate petitioner to civil remedy under Section 9 CPC [Paras 1–2].

Article 226 – Discretionary Relief – Alternative Remedy – Though disputes relating to suspension of membership may ordinarily be adjudicated in civil proceedings, High Court can exercise discretion under Article 226 where continuation of impugned action is unjustified in the given facts – Held: Existence of alternative remedy not an absolute bar [Paras 1, 5–6].

Suspension Pending Inquiry – Proportionality – Continuation of suspension not justified when petitioner unequivocally withdraws allegations, expresses remorse, and undertakes not to repeat unsubstantiated accusations – Held: Suspension quashed to prevent unnecessary precipitation of dispute [Paras 5–6].

Undertaking – Future Conduct – While quashing suspension, Court bound petitioner to his undertaking not to repeat allegations without substantiation – Liberty reserved to concerned authorities to act strictly in accordance with law if future cause arises [Para 6].

Election Process – Society Governance – Appointment of Returning Officer and pendency of election process not a valid ground to indefinitely continue suspension when equities favour intervention – Held: Decision to suspend cannot be insulated from judicial review merely because elections are underway [Paras 3–4, 6].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of – Decision to suspend the petitioner’s membership quashed – Petitioner bound by undertaking to withdraw complaints and not repeat unsubstantiated allegations – Liberty reserved to respondents to take action in accordance with law if future circumstances so warrant.

Bail – UAPA – Section 43D(5) – Prima Facie True Test – At the stage of bail, Court is required to assess material on broad probabilities and not conduct a detailed trial – Documents and investigation material to be taken as they are, without testing admissibility or reliability – Held: Accusation against the appellant found prima facie true on cumulative assessment of material [Paras 17–18].

Criminal Conspiracy – Proof – Circumstantial Evidence – Conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence – Meeting of minds can be inferred from conduct, communications, and surrounding circumstances – Absence from some meetings not decisive – Held: Appellant’s conduct before and after the incident indicates participation in conspiracy [Paras 14–15.1].

Social Media Messages – Instigation – Intention – Appellant circulated screenshot of deceased’s post with provocative and inflammatory message after altering mobile number to reveal identity – Message capable of provoking violence in communally sensitive atmosphere – Relevant under Section 14 Evidence Act to infer intention and state of mind – Held: Prima facie instigation and motive established [Paras 6–10].

Terrorist Act – UAPA – Formation of Terrorist Gang – Material indicates organised plan to avenge perceived insult to faith and to strike terror in society – Killing of deceased as part of wider design – Held: Prima facie applicability of Sections 16, 18 and 20 UAPA [Paras 12–13, 18].

Extra-Judicial Confession – Evidentiary Value – Confession of co-accused not substantive evidence by itself – However, when supported by independent circumstantial material, it can lend corroboration – Held: Even dehors extra-judicial confessions, sufficient prima facie material exists against appellant [Paras 15–17].

Bail – Length of Custody – Article 21 – Though prolonged incarceration is a relevant factor, it cannot override statutory embargo under UAPA when accusations are prima facie true and evidence is of sufficient probative value – Held: Continued detention justified in view of gravity and nature of offence [Paras 18–18.1].

Precedents – Applicability – Vernon v. State of Maharashtra and Pancho v. State of Haryana distinguished on facts – Case governed by principles laid down in NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali and Union of India v. Barakathullah – Held: Bail rightly denied [Paras 16–17.3].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order of Special Judge rejecting bail confirmed – Court holds that there are reasonable grounds to believe that accusations against the appellant are prima facie true – Statutory bar under UAPA attracted – No case for grant of bail made out.

Partition – Joint Property – Abadi Land and Agricultural Land – Jurisdiction – Land measuring 141 kanals comprising agricultural land and gair mumkin abadi – Financial Commissioner held that revenue authorities have jurisdiction to partition only agricultural land and not abadi land – Parties relegated to Civil Court for partition of abadi land – Suit for partition of abadi land held maintainable [Paras 5, 7, 10–11].

Co-sharer – Sale of Specific Khasra Numbers – Status of Vendee – Defendants claimed exclusive ownership on basis of sale deeds describing specific khasra numbers and boundaries – Held that sale by a co-sharer of specific khasra numbers from joint holding amounts to sale of undivided share only – Vendee steps into shoes of vendor as co-sharer in entire joint khewat – Exclusive possession does not exclude property from partition [Paras 6, 12–15].

Precedent – Binding Nature of Full Bench Decision – Reliance placed on Full Bench judgment in Ram Chander v. Bhim Singh, 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 685 – Earlier contrary view held no longer good law – Trial Court rightly followed binding Full Bench decision – No error in decreeing suit for partition [Paras 12–15].

Partition Proceedings before Revenue Authorities – Conduct of Parties – After remand by Financial Commissioner, parties consented to exclusion of khasra Nos. 997, 998, 999 and 1000 from partition proceedings as abadi land – Defendants participated in proceedings without objection to mode of partition – Final partition of agricultural land attained finality – Defendants estopped from challenging partition indirectly in civil proceedings [Paras 8, 10–11].

Preferential Rights among Vendees – Stage of Consideration – Defendants contended that being prior vendees from Parsin Kaur, they have preferential rights in her share – Held that issue is premature at stage of preliminary decree – Liberty granted to raise plea under Section 48 of Transfer of Property Act at stage of final decree proceedings [Paras 16–17].

Second Appeal – Scope of Interference – Concurrent findings of fact by Trial Court and First Appellate Court that property is joint and plaintiffs are co-sharers – No substantial question of law arising – Regular Second Appeal dismissed [Paras 15, 18].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgments and decrees of Courts below affirmed – Liberty reserved to defendants to raise plea of preferential rights at final decree stage – Pending applications disposed of.

Order VIII Rule 1 CPC – Failure to file written statement within 90 days – Lethargy and negligence – Personal hardship not “exceptional circumstance” – Striking off defence upheld – Article 227 interference declined.

Civil Procedure – Written Statement – Order VIII Rule 1 CPC – Striking Off Defence – Defendant failed to file written statement despite appearance, repeated opportunities and imposition of costs – Delay extended far beyond statutory period of 30 days and outer limit of 90 days – Held: Order VIII Rule 1 CPC mandates timely filing; prolonged inaction amounts to lethargy and wilful negligence justifying striking off defence [Paras 5–6].

Exceptional Circumstances – Meaning and Scope – Plea of personal distress due to death of son and alleged lapse of counsel raised to justify delay – Held: Such grounds, without substantiating circumstances showing impossibility to act, do not constitute “exceptional circumstances” within the meaning of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC [Paras 3, 6].

Conduct of Litigant – Lethargy Not to Be Encouraged – Defendant remained inactive for nearly 1½ years after appearance – Courts not required to come to aid of negligent litigants who abuse procedural indulgence – Procedural discipline essential for expeditious justice [Para 6].

Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Limited Scope – High Court will not interfere with discretionary orders of Trial Court unless perversity or jurisdictional error shown – Trial Court exercised discretion judiciously and recorded cogent reasons – No ground for interference made out [Paras 4, 6].

Decision: Civil Revision dismissed – Order dated 15.10.2025 striking off defence upheld – Petition found meritless.

Rent Control – Provisional Assessment of Rent – Denial of Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Tenant admitting tenancy but disputing identity of landlord – Landlady relying on registered sale deed, mutation, electricity bills and income tax returns – Tenant failing to produce any documentary evidence of alleged alternative landlords – Held: Mere denial of relationship does not bar Rent Controller from assessing provisional rent where tenancy and possession are admitted [Paras 11–15].

Rent Control – Non-Payment of Provisionally Assessed Rent – Consequences – Once provisional rent assessed and tenant fails to deposit the same, nothing further survives for adjudication – Rent Controller bound to pass ejectment order – Non-framing of issues or absence of evidence immaterial in such situation – Eviction upheld [Paras 16–20].

Rent Control Proceedings – Denial of Title vs. Denial of Tenancy – Distinction – Tenant not disputing status as tenant but only disputing landlady’s title – Obligation to deposit rent or use and occupation charges continues – Tenant cannot “holiday from payment” merely by raising title dispute – Principle reaffirmed [Paras 17–18].

Evidence – Ownership of Landlady – Registered sale deed of 1989 supported by mutation entries, electricity connection and income tax returns showing rental income – Subsequent declaratory suit filed by cousins decades later held inconsequential – Wills allegedly disinheriting landlady held irrelevant to property exclusively owned by her [Paras 12–14, 22].

Precedents – Applicability – Judgments relied upon by tenant distinguished – Cases where tenancy itself denied or ownership clouded factually distinguishable – Binding precedents mandate eviction on failure to deposit provisional rent – Coordinate Bench and Supreme Court rulings followed [Paras 21–23].

Decision: Revision petitions dismissed – Orders of Rent Controller dated 15.04.2025 and Appellate Authority dated 28.05.2025 affirmed – Ejectment of tenants upheld.