Execution Proceedings – Section 47 CPC – Scope and Limits – Objections raised by judgment-debtors questioning executability of decree – Held: Executing Court cannot go behind decree but can examine whether decree is a nullity, vague, or incapable of execution – Executability of decree itself falls within ambit of Section 47 CPC [Paras 52–55, 69–74].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Section 115 CPC – Narrow Compass – High Court can interfere only where subordinate court has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it, failed to exercise jurisdiction, or acted with material irregularity – Revisional court not an appellate forum for reappreciation of evidence [Paras 51, 63].

Execution of Injunction Decree – Vagueness – Inexecutability – Decree of permanent injunction restraining disclosure of design without specifying design particulars, dimensions, drawings or identifying features – Held: Prohibitory decree lacking precision and certainty is incapable of execution – Vague decree cannot be enforced by attachment of property [Paras 72–77].

Attachment of Property – Beyond Decree – Impermissible – Decree restrained disclosure of design by Defendant No.1 only – No direction for attachment, seizure or restraint on use of machines – Executing Court exceeded jurisdiction by attaching machines not identified or declared infringing in decree – Held: Executing Court travelled beyond decree [Paras 65–66, 80–84].

Secondary Evidence – Indian Evidence Act – Strict Compliance Required – Photocopy of agreement dated 29.01.2015 relied upon by Executing Court – Application under Section 65 Evidence Act neither allowed nor adjudicated – Document not exhibited or proved – Held: Unproved and inadmissible document cannot form basis of adjudication in execution proceedings [Paras 67–68].

Cross-examination – Reference to Unproved Document – No Cure of Inadmissibility – Mere confrontation of witness with inadmissible document does not render it proved or admissible – Evidentiary status cannot be conferred indirectly [Para 68].

Execution Proceedings – Recording of Evidence – Permissibility – Executing Court permitted to record evidence in exceptional cases when necessary for effective execution – Decree-holders having invited remand and participated in evidence cannot later object – Principle of approbate and reprobate applied [Paras 61].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Objection at Belated Stage – Waiver – Judgment-debtors participated in execution proceedings without protest – Order of transfer and attachment not challenged earlier – Held: Objection as to territorial jurisdiction barred by acquiescence and waiver [Para 62].

Order XXI Rule 32 CPC – Injunction Decree – Preconditions – Execution for breach of injunction presupposes clearly identifiable prohibited act – Where subject matter of restraint is indeterminate, execution by coercive measures impermissible [Paras 75–76].

Attachment Based on Subsequent Agreement – Jurisdictional Error – Executing Court maintained attachment of one machine on basis of agreement dated 20.06.2020 – Said agreement not subject matter of decree – Held: Execution cannot be founded on subsequent transactions requiring independent adjudication [Paras 78–84].

Additional Evidence at Revisional Stage – Not Maintainable – Applications to place additional documents on record during revision dismissed – Revisional court confined to material before executing court – Allowing fresh material would convert revision into appeal [Paras 15–18].

Decision: S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 12/2023 (by Decree-holders) dismissed – S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 273/2022 (by Objectors/Judgment-debtors) allowed – Impugned order dated 11.11.2022 set aside to extent it maintained attachment of one machine – Executing Court directed to release both machines forthwith – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 85–88].

Civil Procedure – Appointment of Advocate Commissioner – Mandatory Injunction – Suit initially filed for bare injunction later amended to include relief of mandatory injunction for removal of alleged encroachment and construction – Trial Court allowed application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to measure suit property with help of Surveyor – Held: In a suit seeking mandatory injunction, proper measurement and identification of offending construction is essential to avoid execution difficulties – Appointment of Advocate Commissioner justified [Paras 4–5].

Civil Suit – Bare Injunction vs Mandatory Injunction – Change of Circumstances – Earlier application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner dismissed when suit was only for bare injunction – Subsequently, prayer for mandatory injunction introduced by amendment – Held: Dismissal of earlier application does not bar a fresh application when there is a subsequent change in circumstances – Doctrine of res judicata not attracted [Paras 7–8].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Limited Interference – Challenge to interlocutory order appointing Advocate Commissioner – Held: Order passed by Trial Court is neither perverse nor illegal – Appointment would assist Court in adjudicating real controversy – No ground for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution [Paras 8–9].

Measurement of Property – Role of Advocate Commissioner – Direction issued that Advocate Commissioner shall measure suit property with assistance of Surveyor with reference to title deeds of both parties and revenue records – Held: Such exercise would aid effective adjudication and precise identification of disputed constructions [Para 10].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Order appointing Advocate Commissioner upheld – Directions issued regarding manner of measurement – No costs – Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Mortgage – Power of Attorney – Scope of Authority – Invalid Mortgage – Suit filed for recovery of mortgage money on basis of mortgage deed executed by power agent – Power of attorney authorised borrowing only from private financiers or nationalised banks – Mortgage executed in favour of individual plaintiffs and consideration adjusted towards antecedent debts – Held: Agent acted beyond authority conferred – Power agent cannot enlarge scope of mandate – Mortgage deed invalid and not binding on principals [Paras 14–19].

Hindu Law – Ancestral Property – Debt Binding on Coparceners – Suit property ancestral – Mortgage executed by agent of Karta – Debt binding on minor coparceners only if incurred for legal necessity or benefit of estate – Mortgage executed for adjustment of antecedent debts without proof of family necessity – Held: Debt not binding on coparceners (defendants 2 & 3) [Paras 17–18].

Civil Law – Consideration – Adjustment of Antecedent Debts – Major portion of mortgage consideration adjusted towards alleged prior promissory notes – No authority under power deed to discharge antecedent debts – No evidence of actual flow of funds to principals – Held: Absence of valid consideration flowing to defendants – Mortgage unenforceable [Paras 15–16].

Limitation – Mortgage Suit – Part Payment – Section 19, Limitation Act – Mortgage executed in 1998 – Suit filed in 2015 – Plaintiffs relied on alleged part payment by agent in 2004 – Agent not authorised and payment not shown to be from debtor’s funds – Held: Part payment by unauthorised agent does not extend limitation – Endorsement held invalid – Suit barred by limitation [Paras 20–23].

Appellate Jurisdiction – First Appeal – Reappreciation of Evidence – Trial Court dismissed suit after appreciating oral and documentary evidence – Findings found consistent with law and evidence – Held: No perversity or error warranting interference – Judgment and decree affirmed [Paras 24–25].

Decision: Appeal dismissed with costs – Judgment and decree dated 03.12.2019 in O.S. No.177 of 2015 confirmed – Mortgage held invalid and unenforceable – Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition closed.

Property Law – Sale of Immovable Property – Execution through Power of Attorney – Burden of Proof – Appellant claimed ownership on basis of sale deed executed by alleged power of attorney holder of original owner – Power of attorney neither produced nor proved – Held: In absence of proof of authority, sale deed cannot confer valid title on purchaser [Paras 9–10, 14–15].

Evidence – Non-Examination of Material Witness – Plaintiff did not enter witness box – Evidence led through special power of attorney holder – Principal to sale transaction and executant of alleged power of attorney not examined – Held: Failure to examine material witnesses creates serious doubt regarding execution and validity of transaction [Paras 8, 14–15].

Power of Attorney – Requirement of Registration – Transfer of Immovable Property of value exceeding ₹100 – Sale claimed through power of attorney – Held: For valid transfer of immovable property, power of attorney authorizing sale must be registered – Unregistered or unproved power of attorney cannot be acted upon [Paras 10, 14].

Civil Suit – Ejectment – Title Not Proved – Plaintiff sought eviction of defendant on basis of alleged ownership – Defendant’s possession claimed to be permissive – Held: When plaintiff fails to establish lawful title, suit for ejectment is not maintainable – Trial Court justified in dismissing suit [Paras 14–16].

First Appeal – Scope of Interference – Concurrent findings on appreciation of evidence – No perversity or legal error shown – Held: Appellate Court will not interfere with well-reasoned judgment of trial court [Paras 15–16].

Decision: First Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 05.01.2002 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Harda in Civil Suit No. 24-A/2001 affirmed – Trial Court record directed to be returned.

NDPS Act – Bail – Commercial Quantity – Rigours of Section 37 – Recovery of 960 capsules of Parivon Spas Plus containing Tramadol (480 grams) and 22.92 grams of heroin from vehicle driven by petitioner – Held that Tramadol recovered constitutes commercial quantity – Twin conditions under Section 37 NDPS Act mandatory – Court not satisfied that accused is not guilty or that he would not commit offence while on bail – Bail rejected [Paras 10–11, 17].

NDPS Act – Section 37 – Twin Conditions – Interpretation – Court reiterated that “reasonable grounds” means something more than prima facie satisfaction – In absence of material to show innocence and likelihood of non-repetition of offence, embargo on grant of bail operates – Liberal approach impermissible in NDPS cases involving commercial quantity [Paras 11–16].

Bail – Criminal Antecedents – Likelihood of Repetition – Status report disclosing prior FIR against petitioner resulting in life sentence – Held that antecedents and nature of allegations indicate possibility of re-offending and witness intimidation – Factor weighs against grant of bail [Paras 3, 17].

Bail – Delay in Trial – Right to Speedy Trial – Plea of prolonged incarceration rejected – Petitioner failed to place order sheets to show delay attributable to prosecution – Mere delay cannot override mandatory requirements of Section 37 NDPS Act – Bail cannot be granted solely on ground of delay [Paras 19–21].

Principles of Bail – NDPS Offences – Supreme Court Precedents – Reliance placed on Pinki v. State of U.P., State of Kerala v. Rajesh, Union of India v. Mohd. Nawaz Khan, Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh, and NCB v. Kashif – Held that in NDPS cases involving commercial quantity, negation of bail is the rule and grant is an exception [Paras 8–16, 18].

Decision: Bail application dismissed – Observations confined to bail proceedings and not to affect merits of trial [Paras 23–24].

Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Shared Household – Alienation by Husband – Rights of Wife – Bona fide Purchaser – Wife claimed right to continue in matrimonial home after husband sold property to third party during matrimonial dispute – Property sold through registered sale deed – Held: Right of residence under Section 17 DV Act does not confer indefeasible right against a bona fide purchaser – Protection under Section 17(2) operates only against the “respondent” under Section 2(q) DV Act – Purchaser not a respondent – Eviction in due course of law permissible [Paras 21–21.7].

Alienation of Property – Allegation of Collusion – Agreement to sell executed prior to filing of injunction suit and during subsistence of matrimonial dispute – Sale deed executed after compromise in specific performance suit – Evidence showed negotiations conducted openly in presence of both spouses – Held: No material to establish sham or collusive transaction – Purchaser a bona fide purchaser for consideration [Paras 20–20.6].

Shared Household – Effect of Death of Husband – Husband died during pendency of proceedings – Domestic relationship came to an end though wife continued to be an “aggrieved person” – Remedy, if any, lay against legal heirs of husband and not against bona fide purchaser – Section 17 DV Act cannot be stretched to prohibit eviction in due course of law [Paras 21.6–21.8].

Section 26 DV Act – Reliefs in Other Proceedings – Though reliefs under DV Act can be sought in civil proceedings – Same cannot defeat rights of third parties who are not respondents under the Act – Section 26 does not override property rights of bona fide purchaser [Paras 21.7–21.8].

Mandatory Injunction – Maintainability – Permissive Possession – Wife in occupation of property only by virtue of matrimonial relationship – No independent right, title or interest – Title of purchaser clear and undisputed – Held: Suit for mandatory injunction for delivery of possession maintainable – No requirement to file suit for possession [Paras 22–22.3].

Licence – Wife Not a Licensee – Wife cannot be treated as licensee of husband – Occupation permissive but without independent right – Termination notice does not change nature of possession – Suit maintainable despite incorrect nomenclature [Paras 22.1–22.3].

Ancestral Property – Plea Rejected – No evidence to establish property as ancestral or HUF property – Property purchased from funds received by husband from sale of inherited property – Held: Self-acquired property of husband – Findings of courts below upheld [Paras 23–23.1].

Mesne Profits – Assessment – Appellate court awarded mesne profits at Rs.20,000 per month despite absence of specific evidence – Considering location, size and inflationary trends – Held: Assessment reasonable and not excessive – Occupation without payment impermissible [Paras 24–24.2].

Permanent Injunction – Refusal Upheld – Wife not entitled to restrain alienation or dispossession by lawful process – No prima facie right established under DV Act or property law – Dismissal of suit for injunction upheld [Paras 25].

Second Appeal – No Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent findings of fact by courts below based on proper appreciation of evidence – No perversity or legal infirmity shown – All three appeals dismissed [Paras 26].

Civil Law – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Limitation – Suit for partition and injunction based on inheritance – Defendant sought rejection of amended plaint alleging challenge to Will barred by limitation – Plaintiff pleaded lack of knowledge of alleged Will of 2008 until much later – Held: When plaintiff asserts knowledge of essential facts at a later stage, plea of limitation becomes a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be decided at threshold – Rejection of plaint is a drastic power to be exercised sparingly – Application dismissed [Paras 7, 12–14, 18–19].

Pleadings – Amended Plaint – Alleged contradiction between original and amended pleadings – Defendant contended inconsistent stands on date of knowledge of Will – Held: Entire plaint must be read meaningfully as a whole – Alleged inconsistencies and truthfulness of pleadings are matters for trial and evidence and cannot be adjudicated under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 9–10, 19].

Civil Procedure – Order X Rule 2 CPC – Scope and object – Defendant sought examination of plaintiff to test veracity of pleadings – Held: Order X Rule 2 is an enabling provision to seek clarification of pleadings and cannot substitute cross-examination or be used to test truthfulness – Court cannot assume role of counsel for a party – Provision not meant for roving enquiry before framing of issues [Paras 11, 14–17].

Succession Law – Will – Attesting Witness – Knowledge of contents – Section 63(c), Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Defendant argued that plaintiff, being attesting witness, must be deemed to have knowledge of contents of Will – Held: Law only requires witness to see testator sign the Will – Attesting witness need not know contents of Will – No presumption of knowledge can be drawn solely from attestation [Paras 20].

Partition Suit – Inheritance Dispute – Alleged fraudulent Will – Threat of alienation – Cause of action – Plaintiff pleaded joint ownership upon death of mother and subsequent coercion by defendants – Held: Plaint discloses triable issues and cannot be termed vexatious or illusory at threshold [Paras 2–4, 14, 19, 21].

Decision: Application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Order X Rule 2 CPC dismissed – Suit to proceed – Matter listed before Joint Registrar on 15.04.2026.

Disability Pension – Armed Forces Tribunal – Judicial Review – Medical Board Opinion – Constitutional and Lifestyle Diseases – Union of India challenged a batch of orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal granting disability pension to Army and Navy personnel suffering from diseases such as diabetes mellitus, primary hypertension, dyslipidemia, obesity, leukemia, panic disorder, hearing loss and other ailments – Union of India contended that opinion of Invaliding/Release Medical Board declaring such diseases as constitutional or lifestyle-related is final and binding under Pension Entitlement Rules, 2008 and Navy Pension Regulations – Held: Opinion of Medical Board is not sacrosanct and is amenable to judicial scrutiny – Tribunal has jurisdiction to examine whether Medical Board opinion is reasoned, consistent with service records and statutory rules – Mere branding of disease as “constitutional” or “lifestyle” is not sufficient to deny disability pension [Paras 7, 14–18].

Pension Entitlement Rules, 2008 – Interpretation – No Restrictive Departure from 1982 Rules – Contention that Rules of 2008 introduced a stricter regime and diluted presumptions in favour of servicemen rejected – Held: Rules of 2008 expand and clarify entitlement and do not curtail benefits available under pre-2008 regime – Provisions relating to causal connection, manifestation of disease and aggravation are to be applied in a liberal and purposive manner – Rule 5 stating that mere manifestation of disease during service does not per se establish attributability does not negate presumption where service conditions show contribution or aggravation [Paras 10–11, 18].

Attributability and Aggravation – Presumption in Favour of Military Personnel – Burden of Proof – Where no disease is noted at the time of entry into service, presumption is that the serviceman was in sound physical condition – Subsequent deterioration in health during service raises presumption of service-related aggravation – Onus lies on employer to establish that disease is wholly unrelated to service – Serviceman not required to prove exact causation of diseases like hypertension or diabetes – Benefit of reasonable doubt must go to the serviceman [Paras 15, 17].

Medical Board – Requirement of Reasons – Transparency and Fairness – Medical Board must record clear, cogent and intelligible reasons while opining on attributability or aggravation – A bald or mechanical opinion that disease is constitutional or not connected with service, without reasons, vitiates denial of disability pension – Absence of reasons renders decision arbitrary and unsustainable – Tribunal and High Court entitled to interfere in such cases [Paras 14, 16].

Service Records – Evidentiary Value – Operational and Stressful Postings – Service records showing long tenure, postings in field/high altitude/operational areas and exposure to stress have substantial evidentiary value – Diseases arising or worsening during or after such service conditions can reasonably be linked to military service – Tribunal justified in relying upon service records and surrounding circumstances to hold aggravation [Paras 2–3, 13–14].

Low Medical Category – Superannuation / Premature Retirement – Entitlement to Disability Pension – Disability pension not confined only to cases of invalidation – Personnel retiring on superannuation, premature retirement or completion of tenure in low medical category are entitled to disability pension if disability is attributable to or aggravated by service and assessed at 20% or more – Regulations 173 (Army, 1961) and 37 (Army, 2008) affirm such entitlement [Paras 2, 12].

Scope of Interference under Article 226 – High Court will interfere with Tribunal’s orders only if findings are perverse, based on irrelevant material or ignore vital evidence – No perversity or legal infirmity found in Tribunal’s reasoning – Tribunal applied settled principles and beneficial interpretation of pension laws correctly [Paras 18–19].

Decision: All writ petitions dismissed – Orders of Armed Forces Tribunal granting disability pension upheld – Interim orders vacated.

Motor Vehicles Law – Bike Taxis as Transport Vehicles – Sections 2(7), 2(25), 2(47), 41(4), MV Act, 1988; Rule 2, CMV Rules, 1989; Central Government Notification S.O.1248(E) dated 05.11.2004; Central Government Clarification No. RT-11021/34/2023-MVL dated 22.01.2024 – Affirmative Finding – The High Court held that a motorcycle, capable of carrying a rider and a pillion passenger, falls within the definition of 'motorcab' under Section 2(25) and consequently within 'contract carriage' under Section 2(7) of the MV Act when used for hire or reward – The Central Government's 2004 notification explicitly lists motorcycles for hire to carry one pillion passenger as transport vehicles – This position was further clarified by the Central Government in 2024, advising States/UTs to process permit applications for motorcycles as contract carriages – The argument that CMV Rules' vehicle classification excludes motorcycles from carrying passengers for hire was rejected, as classification is based on construction, not commercial use – A previous Division Bench ruling affirming motorcycles as transport vehicles has attained finality – Motorcycles are legally classifiable as transport vehicles and contract carriages under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Paras 46, 49, 50, 53, 54, 57, 59, 60, 61, 67, 68, 121, 124].

Constitutional Law – Right to Trade and Business – Article 19(1)(g), 19(6), Constitution of India – Legitimate Business – The Court affirmed that operating bike taxis is a legitimate business protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, not being inherently dangerous, illegal, or res extra commercium – Any restrictions must be imposed by a valid law, be in the public interest, and be reasonable under Article 19(6) – A complete prohibition, while potentially falling under "restriction," requires strict scrutiny and substantiation by credible material demonstrating that less drastic measures would be insufficient to achieve the public interest objective – A blanket prohibition on bike taxi services, without a valid law and justification for its reasonableness and public interest, infringes Article 19(1)(g) [Paras 69, 73, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 95, 123, 125, 126].

Motor Vehicles Law – State Government's Power to Control Road Transport and Issue Permits – Sections 66, 67, 73, 74, 80, 96, MV Act, 1988; KODTTA Rules, 2016 – State Cannot Impose Blanket Ban – The MV Act, a Central legislation, occupies the field of motor vehicle regulation, preventing the State from enacting repugnant laws or excluding motorcycles as transport vehicles – While Section 67 empowers the State to control road transport and make schemes, this power is not unbridled and must be exercised by gazette notification, guided by objectives like last-mile connectivity and safety, not for a blanket ban on a class of vehicles – Sections 73, 74, and 80 mandate that Regional Transport Authorities (RTAs) shall not ordinarily refuse contract carriage permit applications and must provide written reasons for any denial, precluding a blanket ban – The KODTTA Rules, defining 'taxi' as 'motorcab', implicitly cover bike taxis, meaning aggregators are entitled to operate bike taxi services under existing licenses, provided vehicle details are furnished – The State's contention of a policy prohibiting bike taxis was rejected due to lack of formal notification and contradictory actions like the Electric Bike Taxi Scheme – The State Government cannot impose a blanket ban on bike taxi services or refuse permits for motorcycles as transport vehicles without a valid, reasoned, and publicly notified policy consistent with the MV Act and constitutional rights [Paras 86, 87, 88, 97, 98, 99, 105, 106, 107, 108, 113, 118, 119, 120, 121, 125, 134, 135, 139, 141, 147].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The impugned order of the Single Judge is set aside – Motorcycle owners are granted liberty to file applications for registration as transport vehicles (yellow board) and for contract carriage permits – The State Government is directed to consider these applications without denying them on the ground that motorcycles cannot be operated as transport vehicles or contract carriages – Pending applications of aggregators are to be considered, and fresh applications are permitted, all to be processed in accordance with law and the Court's observations [Paras 149, 151, 152].