Election Law – Election Petition – Affidavit in Form 25 – Allegations of Corrupt Practices – Substantial Compliance – Curable Defect – Interlocutory application filed seeking striking out of pleadings and dismissal of election petition under Section 86 of the R.P. Act on the ground that no affidavit in Form 25 was filed along with the election petition – High Court earlier dismissed the application but granted time to file Form 25 affidavit – Supreme Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration on limited issues relating to defects, curability, limitation and power of the High Court – On remand, High Court examined compliance with Orissa High Court Rules and Form 25 requirements – Held: Affidavit already filed, though not strictly in Form 25, cannot be treated as non-est – Defect pertains to form and not substance – Substantial compliance with proviso to Section 83(1)(c) made out – Election Petition not liable to be dismissed in limine [Paras 1–29, 36(i)–(ii)].

Election Law – Corrupt Practices – Non-disclosure of Criminal Cases, Assets and Liabilities – Nature of Pleadings – Allegations in Paras 14-A to 14-E relating to non-disclosure of criminal cases, assets, immovable properties and liabilities – Though not labelled as “corrupt practices” by the petitioner, Court held such allegations prima facie amount to corrupt practices in light of settled law – Non-disclosure of criminal antecedents and assets constitutes corrupt practice – Necessity of affidavit under Form 25 attracted [Paras 13, 16, 23–24].

Affidavit – Form 25 – Requirement under Section 83(1)(c) – Defect of Form vs Defect of Substance – Affidavit accompanying election petition did not segregate allegations based on personal knowledge and those based on information – However, affidavit generally stated sources including petitioner, polling agents, counting agents, authorised agent and advocates – Held: Absence of strict segregation does not amount to total absence of affidavit – Defect is procedural and curable – Affidavit substantially complies with Form 25 requirements [Paras 24–28].

Limitation – Filing of Supplementary Affidavit – Doctrine of Relation Back – Contention that affidavit filed after expiry of time granted and beyond limitation period is barred – Rejected – Election Petition itself filed within limitation – Filing of supplementary affidavit to cure procedural defect does not amount to extension of limitation – Supplementary affidavit relates back to the date of presentation of election petition – Law of limitation not attracted to curable procedural defects [Paras 31–34, 36(iii)–(iv)].

Powers of High Court – Election Tribunal – Amendment and Rectification of Pleadings – High Court has jurisdiction to permit rectification of procedural defects and filing of supplementary affidavit before commencement of trial – Section 86(1) does not contemplate dismissal for violation of Section 83 – Section 86(5) permits furnishing of further particulars – Hyper-technical approach deprecated – Justice-oriented interpretation preferred [Paras 32–35].

Decision: Interlocutory Application disposed of – Election Petition not dismissed – Defect in affidavit held curable – Supplementary affidavit permitted – Agreed portions of pleadings struck off by consent – Parties granted time to carry out consequential amendments – Election Petition to proceed further.

Partnership – Retirement of Partners – Firm Owning Immovable Property – Mere retirement deed without registered release of interest in immovable properties does not divest outgoing partner of title – In absence of registered instrument as mandated under Section 17(1) of Registration Act and proper stamp duty, no effective vesting of title in continuing partners – Firm does not cease to exist without lawful dissolution or registered relinquishment [Paras 12–14, 19, 22].

Registration of Firm – Use of Identical Name – Defendants, after earlier retirement and express conduct disclaiming interest, registered new firm in identical name – Held: Having relinquished rights by conduct and representation, defendants not entitled to register firm in same name – Partnership deed dated 13.10.2016 declared null and void – Declaratory relief rightly granted by trial Court [Paras 17, 19].

Co-ownership – Injunction Against Co-owner – Property standing in name of partnership firm where no valid dissolution or registered relinquishment – All partners remain co-owners – No injunction can be granted against co-owner in absence of clear exclusive possession – Plaintiffs failed to establish exclusive possession – Permanent injunction set aside [Paras 24–26].

Possession – Evidence – Letter to Bank (Ex.B7) and endorsement acknowledging receipt of keys after settlement of loan indicated defendants’ physical possession – Trial Court erred in not considering material exhibits – Plaintiffs not entitled to injunction [Paras 24, 26].

Settlement of Accounts – Outgoing Partner’s Rights – In absence of lawful settlement, outgoing partner entitled under Section 37 of Partnership Act to share of profits or interest attributable to use of his share – Mode of settlement under Section 48 not followed – Parties required to seek comprehensive adjudication of rights [Paras 25, 21–22].

Relief – Comprehensive Suit Required – Core issue of validity of retirements, dissolution and settlement of accounts not addressed by parties – Appropriate remedy is comprehensive suit for declaration/dissolution and partition – Peripheral litigation inadequate to resolve dispute [Paras 19, 21–22].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Decree of permanent injunction set aside – Declaration that partnership deed dated 13.10.2016 registered as No.821 of 2016 is null and void sustained – Parties at liberty to approach competent Civil Court for comprehensive reliefs – No order as to costs – Connected CMPs closed.

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance – Wife and Minor Child – Section 18 Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act – Partial Modification of Quantum – Family Court granted maintenance to wife and minor son at different slabs for different periods – On appeal, High Court upheld entitlement of wife and child to maintenance but modified quantum payable from the date of order – Held: Wife entitled to Rs.8,000/- per month and minor son to Rs.4,000/- per month from 27.06.2024 instead of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively [Paras 11–18].

Maintenance – Entitlement of Minor Child – No Dispute as to Relationship – Minor Son Living Separately from Father – Held: Minor child’s right to maintenance is absolute and unquestionable – No objection can be entertained against grant of maintenance to minor son [Para 11].

Maintenance – Wife Living Separately – Justification – Allegations on Fidelity – Neglect by Husband – Court held that baseless allegations on character of wife and failure to take steps for restitution of conjugal rights justify wife living separately – Entitlement to maintenance upheld [Paras 13–14].

Income of Husband – Determination of Maintenance – Payslip Evidence – Husband employed as Fireman in Naval Dockyard – Gross salary Rs.44,249/- per month – Net salary around Rs.19,160/- – Held: Net salary not decisive as deductions may be voluntary and variable – Husband has sufficient earning capacity to pay reasonable maintenance [Paras 15–16].

Quantum of Maintenance – Reasonableness – Scope of Appellate Interference – High Court found maintenance awarded by Family Court generally reasonable – However, future maintenance from date of order slightly on higher side – Modified keeping in view earning capacity and overall circumstances – Rest of directions confirmed [Paras 16–18].

Maintenance Proceedings – Rajnesh v. Neha Guidelines – Non-filing of Affidavits of Assets – Objection Raised at Appellate Stage – Held: Objection merits no consideration when appellant himself did not comply with disclosure requirements – Plea treated as an attempt to delay or dilute proceedings [Para 14].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Maintenance Reduced Prospectively – Past maintenance and other directions of Family Court confirmed – No order as to costs – Pending miscellaneous petitions closed [Para 18].

Civil Law - Ancestral Property – Proof – Revenue Entries – Entry No. 47 (Exh. 42) describing property as “ancestral” – Mere nomenclature in revenue record does not conclusively establish coparcenary character – Revenue entries neither create nor extinguish title – Absence of antecedent evidence showing devolution from Agharabhai – Mutation entries (Exh. 42, 43, 45) indicate co-ownership and family arrangement rather than inheritance by birth – Plaintiff failed to discharge burden of proving ancestral character – Properties held to be self-acquired - Appeal dismissed as no substantial question of law survived [Paras 10 to 10.4].

Coparcenary Rights – Share by Birth – Hindu Succession Act – Plaintiffs contended that share obtained by Reshiabhai on partition retained ancestral character qua male issue – Court held that no foundational evidence proved original ancestral nucleus – Partition entries reflected independent ownership – In absence of proof of ancestral origin, no right by birth accrued to plaintiffs [Paras 4(b), 10, 10.4].

Will – Testamentary Capacity – Self-acquired Property – Section 30 Hindu Succession Act – Once property held to be self-acquired, testator competent to dispose of property by Will – Embargo under Section 30 not attracted – Challenge to authority to execute Will rejected [Paras 11, 11.1].

Will – Proof of Execution – Registered Will – Presumption of Genuineness – Will dated 15.04.1986 registered before Sub-Registrar – One attesting witness examined – Plaintiff herself admitted execution and registration though disputed signature without supporting evidence – No expert evidence led – Testimony of attesting witness could not be discarded merely because he was clerk of advocate – Requirements of Section 63 of Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of Evidence Act satisfied – Execution duly proved – No suspicious circumstances established [Paras 11.1, 12 to 12.2].

Burden of Proof – Ancestral Property & Suspicious Circumstances – Burden lies on party asserting ancestral character – Similarly, where Will is registered, burden shifts on challenger to establish suspicious circumstances – Plaintiffs failed on both counts [Paras 10.3, 11.1].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Impugned judgment of First Appellate Court upheld – Interim relief continued for four weeks from date of judgment and to stand vacated thereafter automatically [Paras 13, 14.1].

Banking Law - Recovery suit by bank - Limitation – Cash Credit Facility – Part-Payments – Section 19, Limitation Act – Fresh Period of Limitation – Commercial Court dismissed bank’s recovery suit holding it barred by limitation by reckoning limitation from expiry of original sanction period – Statement of account revealed multiple part-payments within limitation period including payments in 2014 and till September 2016 – Held: Each payment before expiry of limitation gives rise to a fresh limitation period – Failure to apply Section 19 resulted in manifest error [Paras 20–26].

Limitation – Prior Proceedings before DRT – Exclusion of Time – Section 14, Limitation Act – Bank had earlier instituted recovery proceedings before DRT within limitation – Proceedings returned due to enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction – Time spent prosecuting remedy before DRT liable to be excluded – Held: Bank entitled to exclusion of period spent before DRT as proceedings were bona fide and diligently prosecuted [Paras 27–29].

Banking Law – Statement of Account – Section 65B Evidence Act – Evidentiary Value in Ex Parte Proceedings – Statement of account duly supported by statutory certificate produced and remained unchallenged – Commercial Court disbelieved statement solely for want of proof of renewal of facility – Held: Continued debit and credit entries indicate running account and subsisting contractual relationship – Rejection of statement on hyper-technical grounds unsustainable [Paras 30–35].

Recovery Suit – Legal Heirs of Deceased Borrower – Extent of Liability – Absence of Death Certificate Not Fatal – Respondents impleaded as legal heirs and did not contest proceedings – Liability of legal heirs confined to estate inherited and not personal assets – Held: Non-filing of death certificate or details of devolution of estate cannot defeat decree in ex parte proceedings – Issues of extent of estate can be examined at execution stage [Paras 36–40].

Corporate Litigation – Authorization of Bank Official – Change of Authorized Representative – No Infirmity – Suit instituted through one authorized representative while evidence led by another – Valid power of attorney on record – Held: Banks may act through different officials at different stages – Change of representative does not invalidate pleadings or evidence in absence of challenge to authority [Paras 41–44].

Appellate Interference – Commercial Court Judgment – Erroneous Approach to Limitation and Evidence – Trial court adopted unduly technical and restrictive approach resulting in dismissal of otherwise proved claim – Held: Impugned judgment unsustainable both in law and on facts and liable to be set aside [Paras 45–49].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 13.02.2023 set aside – Recovery suit decreed for ₹10,91,115/- with pendente lite and future interest @ 13.25% per annum with monthly rests – Liability of respondents limited to extent of estate inherited from deceased borrower.

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Section 12A – Pre-Institution Mediation – Mandatory Nature – Suit instituted after 20.08.2022 without compliance – Liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC unless it genuinely contemplates urgent interim relief – Reliance placed on M/s Dhanbad Fuels Pvt. Ltd. and Novenco Building – Compliance mandatory and not directory [Paras 6, 8, 18].

Urgent Interim Relief – Test – Not dependent on ultimate grant of relief – Court to examine plaint and supporting material from standpoint of plaintiff – Relief must not be moonshine or camouflage to bypass mediation – Urgency must be real, immediate and supported by material – Mere pleading not sufficient [Paras 10, 12, 18].

Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC – Attachment Before Judgment – Requirements – Court must be satisfied that defendant is about to dispose of or remove property with intent to obstruct or delay execution – Vague and general allegations insufficient – Particulars and material necessary – Reliance on Onkar Mal Mittal v. State Bank of Patiala [Paras 14, 15].

Attachment Before Judgment – Insufficient Pleadings – Plaintiff alleged defendant was “wandering in village to sell land” – No specific particulars or material indicating intention to defeat decree – Held: Allegations too discrepant and vague to satisfy requirements of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC – Urgent interim relief not genuinely made out [Paras 13, 16, 18].

Section 12A Exception – Not Attracted – Where urgent interim relief claimed is unfounded and unsupported, suit does not fall within exception to mandatory mediation – Plaint liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Liberty granted to file fresh suit after compliance [Paras 18, 19, 20].

Decision: Both revision petitions allowed – Order dismissing application under Order VII Rule 11 set aside – Plaint rejected for non-compliance of Section 12A of 2015 Act – Plaintiff at liberty to file fresh plaint in accordance with law – Connected applications disposed of [Paras 19–21].

Criminal Law – Electronic Evidence – Admissibility of voice recordings – Application under Section 65B, Evidence Act and Section 92, CrPC for taking a pen drive on record – Petitioner sought to introduce a voice recording of the deceased alleging lack of medical treatment to prove the accused forged medical records to cover negligence – Held: The trial court correctly dismissed the application. For electronic voice recordings to be admissible, there must be prima facie evidence or a mechanism to identify the voice of the speaker. In the absence of accepted and definite evidence identifying the voice of the deceased, the prosecution cannot prove the conversation, rendering the electronic record redundant for the trial. [Paras 6-7]

Evidence Act – Relevancy of Evidence – Distinction between charges of forgery and allegations of medical negligence – Accused charged under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC for forging medical documents – Petitioner attempted to bring on record a telephonic conversation regarding lack of medical treatment – Held: The questioned conversation is not relevant for the adjudication of the case. The charges framed against the respondents pertain specifically to the forgery of medical documents, not to medical negligence. Evidence regarding the quality of treatment or lack thereof does not directly serve to prove or disprove the specific act of forgery of documents. [Para 7]

Criminal Trial – Procedural Laches and Credibility – Impact of delay in producing evidence – Incident occurred in 2021; application to produce the pen drive filed in 2024 – Held: A delay of three years and three months in producing the electronic evidence creates serious doubt regarding the authenticity of the article. Furthermore, the fact that none of the family members disclosed the existence of such a telephonic conversation in their statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC during the investigation further weakens the petitioner's case. Such an afterthought, lacking contemporaneous corroboration, does not warrant the exercise of discretionary powers to admit evidence at a belated stage. [Paras 8-9]

Decision: The High Court found no infirmity or illegality in the order of the Trial Court. The petition, being devoid of merit, was dismissed.

Partition – Joint Sale Deed – Presumption of Co-Ownership – Suit property purchased under registered sale deed (Ex.A1) dated 08.05.1995 in joint names of plaintiff and defendant – Defendant contended entire consideration paid by him and plaintiff was a name lender – Held: When sale deed stands in joint names, parties are presumed to be co-owners – Mere plea of payment of entire sale consideration insufficient to dislodge presumption without cogent evidence – Plaintiff entitled to seek partition and separate possession of half share [Paras 2, 11–12].

Adverse Possession – Between Co-Owners – Ouster – Defendant pleaded exclusive possession since 1995 and perfection of title by adverse possession – Held: Mere long or exclusive possession by one co-owner does not amount to ouster – To establish adverse possession against co-owner, clear proof of hostile animus, open and exclusive possession to knowledge of other co-owner for statutory period is required – No evidence adduced by defendant to prove ouster or animus possidendi – Plea rejected [Paras 3, 11–12].

Benami Plea – Bar under Benami Transactions Act – Defendant contended plaintiff was only a name lender and transaction was benami – Held: In absence of specific pleadings and proof, and in view of bar under Sections 3 and 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, plea not sustainable – Burden heavily lies on person alleging benami nature – Not discharged in present case [Para 12].

Burden of Proof – Failure to Adduce Evidence – Defendant neither examined witnesses nor produced documentary evidence to substantiate claim of exclusive payment of sale consideration or adverse possession – Revenue records (Ex.A2 & Ex.A3) reflected joint possession – Non-reply to legal notice demanding partition leads to adverse inference – Concurrent findings of fact by courts below justified [Paras 4, 12].

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – Substantial Questions of Law – Questions framed relating to payment of consideration and adverse possession answered against appellant – No perversity or misapplication of law shown in concurrent findings of trial and first appellate courts – No ground for interference in second appeal [Paras 6, 12].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – No costs – Decree and judgment dated 23.08.2016 in A.S. No. 9 of 2013 confirming decree dated 12.08.2013 in O.S. No. 140 of 2010 upheld – Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Tenancy Law - Eviction – Concurrent Findings – Article 227 Jurisdiction – Tenant challenged concurrent eviction orders passed by Rent Court (RLTOP No. 402 of 2020) and confirmed by Rent Tribunal (RLTA No. 52 of 2025) – Defence raised that there was no jural relationship of landlord and tenant and that landlord’s claim as legatee/foster son under unprobated Will was unsustainable – Held: Identical defence already rejected by Court in connected revisions relating to same premises – No ground to interfere under Article 227 – Revision dismissed [Paras 2–3, 7].

Jural Relationship – Challenge by Tenant – Tenant questioned locus of landlord on ground that Will remained unprobated and landlord was not sole legal heir – Court declined to re-examine issue in view of earlier decision in connected matters confirming landlord’s entitlement to maintain eviction proceedings [Paras 2–3, 7].

Arrears of Rent – Distress Proceedings – Tenant admittedly in arrears of Rs.2,62,300/- representing 43 months’ rent @ Rs.6,100/- per month – Earlier distress application allowed and partial payment made – Continued default noted by Court while considering grant of time [Paras 5–6].

Equitable Relief – Time to Vacate – Though revision dismissed, considering that petitioner was carrying on non-residential jewellery business, Court granted time till 30.06.2026 to vacate, subject to conditions: filing affidavit of undertaking, clearing arrears within stipulated time, and not inducting third parties [Para 7].

Conditional Order – Modification on Mention – On mention, Court recorded payment of Rs.62,300/- and permitted balance Rs.2,00,000/- to be paid in four equal monthly instalments of Rs.50,000/- each in March, April, May and June 2026 – Directed regular monthly rent from January 2026 to be paid in advance on or before 10th of every month [Order dated 05.02.2026, Paras 3–5].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Limited Interference – In absence of perversity or jurisdictional error in concurrent eviction orders, High Court declined to interfere under Article 227, granting only equitable time to vacate [Paras 3, 7].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Time granted to vacate premises on or before 30.06.2026 subject to conditions regarding affidavit of undertaking, payment of arrears and regular payment of rent – Subsequent order permitting instalment payment of arrears – Connected miscellaneous petition closed.