Partition Suit – Successive Litigation – Abuse of Process – Plaintiff in O.S. No.36 of 2021 was 16th defendant in earlier partition suit O.S. No.1407 of 2015 – Earlier suit rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on finding that property belonged to deceased husband as sole heir – No appeal or challenge to said rejection – Held: Subsequent suit on same cause of action amounts to abuse of process and is barred – Plaintiff cannot re-agitate same claim without setting aside earlier decree – Suit struck off under Article 227 of Constitution [Paras 3, 4, 8, 16, 22, 23].

Hindu Succession Act – Section 14 and 15 – Stridhan Property – Devolution – Property purchased by Kamalammal from her stridhan funds became her absolute property under Section 14 – Upon intestate death, devolves under Section 15(1)(a) and not under Section 15(2)(a) – Held: Surviving husband rightly inherited full interest – Plaintiff's claim as heir of father not maintainable – Will by husband valid – No share accrues to plaintiff [Paras 17, 19, 20, 22].

Re-litigation – Jurisdiction under Article 227 – Striking off of Plaint – When fresh suit is based on same cause and factual matrix as earlier suit which has attained finality – Filing of new suit without curing defects amounts to disguised re-litigation – Held: Even if alternate remedy exists, High Court can intervene to prevent misuse of court process – Suit struck off in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction [Paras 15, 21, 23].

Order VII Rule 13 CPC – Scope – Permits fresh suit after rejection under Rule 11 only if defects are cured – Held: In present case, fundamental ground of rejection remained unchanged – Mere refiling without curing legal bar does not revive cause – No protection under Rule 13 available [Paras 5, 15].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition allowed – Suit in O.S. No.36 of 2021 struck off as not maintainable – Connected miscellaneous petition closed – No costs [Para 24].

Matrimonial Law – Civil Revision - Interim Maintenance – Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act – Maintenance to Wife Set Aside – The petitioner-husband challenged the Family Court’s order directing him to pay ₹30,000/- per month each to his wife and son – While not disputing maintenance to the son, the petitioner contended that the wife was financially self-sufficient with substantial dividend income and valuable immovable assets – Held: The respondent-wife received significant income through dividends and owned immovable property – Interim maintenance to the wife not justified – Order of Family Court awarding maintenance to wife set aside; maintenance to son upheld [Paras 2, 11-16, 19-20].

Maintenance – Scope and Object of Section 24 HMA – Determination of "Sufficient Income" – Section 24 intended to ensure support during proceedings, not to enrich financially capable spouse – Held: Maintenance under Section 24 is for sustenance at the standard enjoyed in matrimonial home – Where wife has independent substantial income and assets, claim for interim maintenance not sustainable [Paras 13-16, 19].

Suppression of Income – Dividend and Asset Ownership – Conduct of Wife – Dividends from Scan World Pvt. Ltd. and re-transfer of property during proceedings considered material – Held: Respondent’s act of restraining dividend payout through NCLT and subsequent explanations for property transfer not bona fide – Court found deliberate suppression of income to justify maintenance claim – Family Court erred in overlooking these facts [Paras 5-8, 15].

Final Decision – Civil Revision Petition Partly Allowed – Order awarding maintenance to wife set aside – Maintenance of ₹30,000/- per month to son and NEET coaching fee of ₹2.77 lakhs already paid by petitioner not challenged – Held: Family Court order modified accordingly; no costs awarded [Paras 12, 20].

Service Law - Departmental Proceedings – Scope of Punishment under Section 11 CRPF Act – Dismissal Set Aside – Respondent constable was dismissed from service after being found under influence of alcohol and negligently damaging a cycle while on duty – Disciplinary action taken under Section 11 of the CRPF Act meant for minor punishments – Held: Dismissal being a major penalty was disproportionate where the incident caused no injury or major damage and evidence was inconclusive regarding intoxication during duty – Principles of proportionality and appropriate categorisation of offence under CRPF Act discussed – Dismissal order rightly set aside [Paras 2-5, 13-17].

Proportionality of Punishment – Judicial Review – Award of Minor Punishment Permissible under Section 11 – Inquiry report failed to conclusively establish intoxication while on duty; evidence of co-passenger exonerated respondent – Medical opinion based solely on clinical observation, not backed by blood test – Reliance placed on precedents like Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India and Giriraj Sharma v. Union of India to hold that extreme penalty was unwarranted – Held: Interference justified where penalty shocks the conscience and violates proportionality [Paras 10-12, 18-23].

Delay and Laches – Appellants’ Inaction Noted – No Diligent Prosecution by Union of India – Appeal filed with delay, restored after 4 years of dismissal for non-prosecution – Court declined to remand due to protracted litigation of over 18 years – Held: Respondent not to be penalised for appellants’ procedural lapses – Relief moulded to avoid further litigation [Paras 25-27].

Relief – Reinstatement with Limited Back Wages – Considering respondent's age and pending time for superannuation, Court directed reinstatement with 25% back wages and all notional benefits, including pension – Dismissal not to affect computation of retiral dues – Held: Appropriate relief moulded in equity without remanding matter back to Disciplinary Authority [Paras 28-30].

Money Laundering – Bail on Medical Grounds – Section 45(1) PMLA – Interim Bail Granted – The petitioner, suffering from Spinocerebellar Ataxia Type 12, a rare and incurable neurodegenerative disorder, sought bail on grounds of being “sick and infirm” – Medical Board confirmed severe physical and cognitive disabilities – Held: The petitioner falls within the exception under the proviso to Section 45(1) and is not required to meet the twin bail conditions – Interim bail granted till 15.11.2025 [Paras 2, 10-15, 17].

Custodial Treatment vs. Medical Needs – Jail Facilities Inadequate – Quality of Treatment Differential – The Court noted that jail authorities were unable to provide the level of continuous and prolonged care required for the petitioner’s condition – Citing Naresh Goyal’s case, it was held that treatment as a free citizen is qualitatively different from custodial care – Humanitarian grounds warranted release [Paras 11, 14].

Interpretation of PMLA – Proviso to Section 45(1) – Scope and Applicability – The Court held that the exemption under the proviso to Section 45(1) extends only to serious illnesses which cannot be adequately treated in custody – Once the exemption is applicable, the triple test under Section 45(2) or CrPC does not need to be satisfied – Authorities cited by ED distinguished on facts [Paras 8-13].

Decision – Interim Bail Granted on Medical Grounds – Petition Allowed – The Court found the petitioner’s condition to fall within the statutory exception for bail under the PMLA – Held: Petitioner to be released on interim bail upon furnishing bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties (one local), subject to strict conditions including cooperation with trial court, non-tampering with evidence, and restricted residence – Interim bail to continue till 15th November, 2025 [Paras 15-17].

Civil Law - Permanent Injunction – Consolidation Proceedings – Ownership and Right of Way – Decree Partly Set Aside – Plaintiff sought injunction to restrain defendants from interfering with reconstruction of boundary wall over a passage he claimed was privately carved out during consolidation proceedings – Defendants contended it was a public rasta and necessary for access to their plots – Courts below wrongly placed burden on defendants to prove it was a public way – Held: As per Section 2(bb) and 23A of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, lands reserved during consolidation for roads/pathways vest in Panchayat unless proven otherwise – Plaintiff failed to produce any record showing exclusive private right – Therefore, injunction to block the passage was erroneous – However, injunction against interference with plaintiff’s peaceful possession of remaining land upheld [Paras 8-13].

Burden of Proof – Exclusive Right Over Passage – Requirement of Cogent Evidence – Plaintiff Failed to Discharge Onus – When plaintiff claims exclusive right over land carved out during consolidation, burden lies upon him to prove the same – Mere averment without documentary proof from consolidation proceedings insufficient – Courts erred in shifting burden on defendant to prove public character of passage [Paras 11-12].

Decree Modified – Partial Relief Granted – Injunction Against Interference with Possession Maintained – Relief Regarding Passage Rejected – Appeal allowed partly – Decree modified to the extent that defendants are restrained only from interfering with plaintiff’s possession of remaining suit land, not the passage which was not proved to be plaintiff’s exclusive property [Para 13].

Criminal Contempt – Attack on Advocate Commissioners – Interference with Administration of Justice – Held Guilty – Court-appointed Advocate Commissioners were assaulted by a mob while executing commission in CS(OS) 4024/2014 concerning counterfeit Samsung products – Several Advocates sustained grievous injuries and were forced to abandon commission – Held: Obstruction of Court-appointed Commissioners amounts to direct interference with administration of justice – Such acts undermine judicial authority and cannot be condoned [Paras 1-29, 75-82].

Scope of Contempt Jurisdiction – Standard of Proof – Wilfulness Essential – Contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature – Disobedience must be wilful, intentional and calculated – Mere bystanders or uninformed persons without knowledge of Court orders cannot be punished for criminal contempt though they may face IPC trial – Only persons shown to have incited or participated with knowledge of Court orders were convicted [Paras 69-74, 76-78].

Plea of Alibi – Not Accepted – Respondents 1, 4 and 13 claimed absence during the incident – Pleas rejected – Affidavits and circumstances showed they had knowledge of Court orders and incited mob violence to thwart commission – Physical absence did not absolve responsibility [Para 80].

Decision – Respondents 1 (Rajullah Khan), 2 (Asraf Ali), 4 (Nasrul Haque), 10 (Saheb Alam), 11 (Rashid Iqbal), 13 (Rumaish Akhtar), 17 (Niyaz Ahmed), 18 (Md. Asif), 21 (Anwar Hossain), 22 (Lalchand Khan), 24 (Nishar Ali) and 27 (Ajmatullah Khan) held guilty of criminal contempt – Sentenced to simple imprisonment for one day and fine of Rs. 2,000 each – Remaining respondents discharged – Observations confined to contempt proceedings, independent of pending IPC trials [Paras 82-88].

Adoption – Consent of Biological Father – Inference Permissible – Petitioners, mother and stepfather, applied for adoption – State Authority insisted on father’s written consent though he had relinquished custody/visitation rights in matrimonial settlement – Biological father remained silent before Court – Held: silence and prior relinquishment justify inference of consent; insistence on express consent would defeat child’s welfare – Court directed authorities to complete adoption treating order as proof of consent [Paras 1-5].

Child Welfare – Paramount Consideration – Welfare of child to prevail over technical objections – Refusal or indecision of biological parent cannot deprive child of belonging fully to adoptive family – Court emphasized need for certainty and security in child’s status [Paras 4-5].

Decision – Writ petition disposed – Inference of consent drawn against biological father; petitioners permitted to upload this order as proof of consent – Authorities directed to complete adoption process accordingly [Para 5].

Rent—Order 15-A CPC—Scope of deposit obligation—Fixation of rent disputed—Second eventuality under O.15-A attracted—Upon judicial fixation, tenant must deposit arrears computed on the fixed rent up to the date of fixation and continue to deposit future rent as it falls due—Trial Court’s provisional fixation at ₹20,000 p.m. with arrears ₹21,10,000 from 16-04-2016 to 31-01-2025 sustained [Paras 10, 13-15].

Procedure—Application titled under S.151 CPC—Substance over form—Application treated as under O.15-A CPC having regard to pleadings, arguments, and treatment by Trial Court and High Court—Label of provision not determinative [Paras 8-9,12-13].

Eviction suit—Interim monetary directions—Prior remand—Earlier CRP (No. 447/2024) set aside ₹30,000 p.m. and directed enquiry to fix reasonable rent; Trial Court thereafter fixed ₹20,000 p.m. provisionally—No interference warranted in revision [Paras 2-3, 15].

Practice & Procedure—Striking off defence—Observation by Trial Court—Though beyond prayer, merely reiterative of O.15-A consequence; any actual striking off requires a separate order—No jurisdictional error [Para 7].

Decision—Civil Revision Petition dismissed—No order as to costs—Miscellaneous petitions closed [Para 16].

Civil Law - Injunction – Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC - Prima Facie Case – Co-sharer Rights – Injunction Denied – Lower appellate court granted interim injunction restraining petitioner from alienating suit land – Trial court had earlier rejected the injunction application – Held: Petitioner derived rights through a valid decree and registered Will from deceased co-sharer Chhajju – Revenue records reflected his possession – No injunction can be granted against a co-sharer in settled law – Appellate court's interference unsustainable [Paras 5, 9-10].

Fraud Allegation – Pending Civil Suit – Not a Ground for Interim Relief – Plaintiff challenged previous decree on grounds of fraud – Held: Whether decree was obtained by fraud is a matter of trial – Cannot form basis for interim injunction – Prima facie rights of petitioner remain unaffected at this stage [Para 8].

Balance of Convenience – Title and Possession in Petitioner’s Favour – Registered Will and consent decree favoured petitioner – Revenue record corroborated possession – Held: Balance of convenience tilted in favour of petitioner – No irreparable harm shown by respondent – Trial court order rightly declined injunction [Paras 9-10].

Decision – Civil Revision Allowed – Injunction Rejected – High Court held that the learned Additional District Judge failed to appreciate material facts and settled principles regarding co-sharers – Order dated 16.01.2014 set aside – Trial court’s order dated 10.04.2012 restored – Application for injunction rejected [Paras 10-11].