Civil Law - Rejection of Plaint - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11 and Order 6 Rule 17 - Procedural Propriety - Appellant filed suit for declaring a sale deed null and void alleging fraud and non-payment of consideration - Trial Court allowed defendant application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and rejected the plaint while ignoring a pending application for amendment of pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC - High Court observed that provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 are not controlled by Order 7 Rule 11 - Where an amendment application intends to remedy defects it must be decided prior to or along with the application for rejection of plaint to serve the interests of justice - Held - Trial Court erred in dismissing the suit without considering the impact of the pending amendment application - Appeal allowed - [Paras 1-8].

Civil Law - Sale Deed Validity - Transfer of Property Act 1882 - Section 54 - Execution without consideration - Suit property transferred via registered sale deed against post-dated cheques which were subsequently taken back by the purchaser under false pretenses - Trial Court held only recovery of money suit was maintainable - High Court relied on Kewal Krishan vs Rajesh Kumar - Payment of price is an essential part of sale under Section 54 - If a sale deed is executed without payment of price and lacks provision for future payment it has no legal effect and the sale is void - Held - Absence of sale consideration coupled with allegations of fraud makes the execution itself invalid - Plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold - [Paras 10-15].

Civil Law - Procedure - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11 - Deception and Fraud - Principles for rejection of plaint - Trial Court relied on Dahiben case to reject plaint for non-payment of consideration - High Court distinguished Dahiben on facts noting the present suit was filed within eight months and contained specific averments of fraud - Plaint must be read in its entirety to determine if it discloses a cause of action - Averments of deception and false promises by the defendant must be tested through evidence - Held - Suit involving issues of validity of execution based on fraud requires trial after framing of issues and cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - [Paras 12-18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order dated 02.08.2024 set aside – Suit restored to its original number – Trial Court directed to decide the matter on merits in accordance with law.

Criminal Law - Regular Bail - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 483 - Bail application by lady accused facing charges under BNS POCSO and Atrocities Acts - Prosecution alleged applicant acted as kingpin in forcing a 10 year old minor girl into flesh trade at her residential home - Victim got pregnant by a juvenile facilitated by the applicant - Applicant argued for bail citing her gender and completion of investigation leading to chargesheet - Court noted prima facie involvement supported by victim statement under Section 183 BNSS - Court emphasized the heinous nature of forcefully exploiting a child of tender age and the presumption of guilt under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act - Merely filing a chargesheet or the accused being a woman does not warrant bail in such grave offences - Held - possibility of evidence tampering and flight risk cannot be ruled out - application dismissed - [Paras 1.0-8.0].

Criminal Law - Regular Bail - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 - Sections 29 and 30 - Statutory presumption - Applicant contended that filing of chargesheet lessens the need for continued custody - Court relied on Supreme Court precedent holding that filing of a chargesheet establishes that the investigating agency found materials against the accused for trial - The alleged offence being against a minor orphan attracts proceedings governed by statutory presumptions - Held - no case made out to exercise discretion for granting bail - [Paras 6.4-6.5].

Criminal Law - Bail Jurisprudence - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 483 - Gender of accused as ground for bail - Applicant pleaded for bail on the ground of being a lady accused - Court held that gender alone is not a sufficient ground to enlarge on bail when the accused is involved in a serious crime of repeatedly exploiting a minor 10 year old girl - Held - bail cannot be granted merely because the applicant is a woman - [Para 6.3].

Decision: Application dismissed – Rule discharged – Learned trial Court directed to expedite the trial as the applicant is an under-trial prisoner.

Writ Law - Election Disputes - Pharmacy Act 1948 - Section 40 - Electoral Roll - Challenge to election notification dated 03 10 2023 and nomination criteria and dissolution of Council - Petitioners contended that voters list was published in violation of Rule 3 and Section 40 of Pharmacy Act and that additional eligibility criteria for nominations were illegally prescribed by Commissioner - State dissolved Council citing mal administration and appointed Administrator - High Court held that preparation of electoral roll is a continuous process and its illegality cannot stall elections - High Court however directed Returning Officer to consider representations regarding voters list - High Court quashed the nomination notification holding that executive cannot prescribe additional eligibility criteria like 15 years experience when statute does not provide it - High Court upheld the dissolution of the Council and appointment of Administrator in public interest - Held - WP 24000 of 2023 allowed in part and WP 7473 of 2025 allowed and WP 12522 of 2025 dismissed - [Paras 11-23].

Writ Law - Electoral Roll Preparation - Karnataka State Pharmacy Council Rules 1968 - Rule 4 - Final electoral roll - Whether irregularity in preparation of electoral roll can be a ground to stall elections - Preparation of electoral roll is an important step towards election but not the election itself - Absolute finality is attached to electoral rolls in force for the time being - Any illegality or irregularity committed in the preparation of electoral rolls cannot be made the basis to stall elections but is a subject matter of writ petition - Held - Notification notifying elections does not warrant interference but representations regarding voters list must be considered by Returning Officer - [Paras 15-16].

Administrative Law - Statutory Qualifications - Pharmacy Act 1948 - Section 19 - Nomination of members - Imposition of additional eligibility criteria by executive - Commissioner issued notification prescribing 15 years of business experience for nominated members - Statute did not prescribe such experience requirement - Executive cannot by notification or executive instructions impose additional qualifications unless the Act delegates such authority - Held - Notification prescribing additional eligibility criteria travels beyond the provisions of the Act and is liable to be quashed - [Paras 17-20].

Administrative Law - Dissolution of Statutory Body - Pharmacy Act 1948 - Section 45 - Appointment of Administrator - State Government dissolved Council upon receiving complaints of mal administration and financial mismanagement - Report disclosed illegal investment of funds and failure to comply with statutory audit requirements - Decision taken in public interest to ensure transparency and accountability prevails over individual interests of members - Held - Government Order appointing Administrator does not warrant interference - [Paras 21-23].

Decision: Writ Petition No. 24000 of 2023 allowed in part with directions to the Returning Officer to consider representations regarding the voters list – Writ Petition No. 7473 of 2025 allowed and the notification dated 28-02-2025 quashed – Writ Petition No. 12522 of 2025 dismissed.

Civil Law - Transfer of Suits - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 24(5) and Order VII Rule 10 - Petitioner-tenant assailed order of District Judge Meerut transferring S.C.C. Suit No. 69 of 2020 from the Judge Small Causes Court to the Additional District Judge - Suit was valued at Rs. 1,06,806.45 while the Small Causes Court had pecuniary jurisdiction only up to Rs. 1,00,000 - Evidence had already been recorded by the trial court before the jurisdictional defect was raised - Petitioner argued that proceedings conducted by a court lacking inherent jurisdiction were void and the only permissible course was return of plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for fresh presentation - High Court analyzed the interplay between the power of transfer under Section 24 and the procedure for return of plaint - Held - Section 24(5) CPC specifically provides that a suit may be transferred from a court which has no jurisdiction to try it - Legislative intent is to preserve and continue proceedings before a competent forum and avoid duplication of trial - Absence of jurisdiction in the court of origin does not denude the District Court of its statutory power to transfer the proceedings - Power under Section 24 is remedial and intended to secure the proper administration of justice - Impugned transfer order held valid - [Paras 1-32].

Civil Law - Statutory Interpretation - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 24(5) - Jurisdiction - Legislative Intent - Maxim ut res magis valeat quam pereat - Petitioner contended that Order VII Rule 10 CPC is the mandatory consequence of a jurisdictional defect - Held - Section 24(5) CPC is a specific provision dealing with transfer from a court lacking jurisdiction - Any interpretation rendering this provision redundant or otiose must be avoided - Order VII Rule 10 and Section 24 CPC operate in distinct though complementary spheres - While the former is a procedural mechanism for the parties the latter is a plenary power of the superior court to remedy the defect - Section 24(2) CPC further authorizes the transferee court to proceed from the stage at which the suit stood transferred or retry it - Evidence recorded prior to transfer does not necessarily become non est - [Paras 18-25].

Writ Law - Supervisory Jurisdiction - Constitution of India - Article 227 - Scope of Interference - Petitioner challenged transfer order on purely legal grounds without demonstrating any prejudice - Held - Supervisory jurisdiction is intended to ensure subordinate courts act within the bounds of their jurisdiction - It is not meant to substitute the High Court's view for that of the subordinate court where the course adopted is consistent with the statutory scheme - No patent illegality or perversity found in the District Judge's exercise of power under Section 24(5) CPC - [Paras 30-31].

Decision: Petition dismissed – The order of the District Judge dated 02.04.2026 is upheld.

Civil Law - Impleadment of parties - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order I Rule 10 - Suit initially filed for perpetual injunction and subsequently amended in 2019 to seek declaration of title and recovery of possession - Original sole plaintiff died in 2023 - Mother of the deceased brought on record as plaintiff number two being Class I legal heir - Brothers of the deceased filed impleadment applications claiming to be joint owners of the suit schedule property - Trial court allowed the impleadment holding them to be necessary and proper parties - Petitioner challenged the impleadment arguing the claim for declaration is barred by the twelve year limitation period as the applications were filed after thirteen years - High Court observed that in a suit for declaration of title all co-owners must be arrayed as parties to pass an effective decree - High Court further held that the issue of limitation regarding whether it should be computed from the year 2010 or 2019 is a matter to be decided by the trial court and cannot be determined in interlocutory proceedings - Held - Proposed parties being co-owners are necessary parties and entitled to be impleaded as plaintiffs - No infirmity in the trial court order - Civil Revision Petitions dismissed - [Paras 3-19].

Civil Law - Necessary and Proper Party - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order I Rule 10 - Distinction and test for impleadment - A necessary party is one whose presence is indispensable for passing an effective decree - A proper party is one whose presence is necessary for adjudication of all disputes and would throw light on the subject matter - Suit for declaration of title by one co-owner is not maintainable unless all co-owners are arrayed as plaintiffs - Surviving co-owners must seek declaration of title together - Held - An effective decree can be passed only when all co-owners are plaintiffs to the suit making the proposed parties necessary parties - [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Civil Revision Petitions dismissed – Common order dated 18.03.2024 passed by the trial court confirmed – Miscellaneous applications if any pending shall stand closed.

Civil Law - Rejection of Plaint - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11 and Order 6 Rule 17 - Appellant filed suit for declaring sale deed null and void alleging defendant obtained execution through fraud and deception by handing over post-dated cheques which were later retrieved on false pretext without paying any consideration - Appellant filed amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC pending which defendant filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - Trial court allowed application under Order 7 Rule 11 rejecting the plaint on grounds that only suit for recovery of unpaid consideration was maintainable and ignored the pending amendment application - High Court held that where an application under Order 6 Rule 17 is pending it must be decided first prior to adjudicating the application under Order 7 Rule 11 - Plaint averments taken in their entirety clearly disclosed gross elements of fraud and deception along with complete absence of consideration - Held - Trial court erred in allowing application under Order 7 Rule 11 without deciding the amendment application and wrongly ignored the explicit pleadings of fraud - Appeal allowed - [Paras 2-17].

Civil Law - Validity of Sale - Transfer of Property Act 1882 - Section 54 - Suit for declaration of sale deed as void - Defendant handed over post-dated cheques during execution and subsequently retrieved them on false pretext resulting in complete absence of sale consideration - Payment of price is an essential constituent of sale under Section 54 - Precedent dictates that a sale deed executed without payment of price and without any provision for future payment is a sham transaction and not a valid sale in the eyes of law - Held - Plaint could not be rejected at the threshold by merely treating it as a case of unpaid consideration when the core foundation of the plaint rested on execution obtained via deception and fraud - [Paras 10-16].

Decision: Appeal allowed - Impugned order dated 2.8.2024 passed by the trial Court in RCS-A No.558/2023 is set aside - Matter is remitted back and restored to its original number on the file of the trial Court for framing issues and recording evidence.

Writ Law - Service of Summons - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order V Rule 20 and Section 151 - Service via Email - Petitioner challenged order dated 01.08.2025 passed in O.S.No.3092/2024 where the trial court refused permission to issue summons via email - Petitioner submitted that High Court Circulars were complied with and an affidavit was filed showing the respondent had replied to emails indicating awareness of the litigation - High Court observed that the trial court failed to appreciate the contentions and the mandate of High Court Circular dated 17.02.2025 regarding electronic service - Held - Trial court order set aside and court directed to reconsider the application as per circular dated 17/12/2025 within one week - [Paras 1-6].

Civil Law - Procedure - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order V and Section 151 - Judicial Duty - Application for service of summons through email - High Court relied on Co-ordinate Bench precedents emphasizing that trial courts must pass suitable orders on applications for interim relief or service modes rather than merely issuing notice - Trial Court failed to appreciate that the defendant was reportedly refusing physical notice while engaging via email - Held - Trial courts are obligated to consider technological modes of service when procedural formalities are satisfied - [Paras 2-5].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Order dated 01.08.2025 set aside – Trial Court directed to pass orders on I.A. for email service within one week.

Civil Law - Partition - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 96 - Proof of Will - Remand - Plaintiffs filed suit for partition of ancestral and joint family properties - Defendant No. 5 Appellant purchased part of properties from Defendant No. 1 mother - Appellant contended that Defendant No. 1 became absolute owner via registered Will dated 10.02.1988 Ex.B-10 executed by late father - Trial Court decreed suit in part holding Will was not proved as no attesting witnesses were examined - Appellant argued that both attestors and scribe were dead and son of one attestor was examined as D.W.4 to prove the Will - Trial Court failed to refer to D.W.4 evidence in its judgment or name him in the appendix - Respondents conceded this procedural lapse - High Court observed that Trial Court totally ignored D.W.4 testimony and cross-examination - Held - Interest of justice requires remand - Judgment and decree dated 11.03.2026 set aside - Matter remanded to Trial Court to frame additional issue on whether Ex.B-10 Will is proved in accordance with law - Trial Court directed to hear arguments and pass fresh judgment on merits within two months - [Paras 1-19].

Civil Law - Procedure - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XX Rule 4 - Consideration of evidence - Trial Court ignored the certified copy of deposition and oral evidence of D.W.4 who was examined as a secondary witness to a Will after the death of original attestors - Omission of witness name from appendix and failure to discuss evidence on record constitutes a ground for interference in appeal - Held - Findings of Trial Court on the point of Will are unsustainable due to non-consideration of material evidence - [Paras 15-16].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree in O.S.No.9 of 2013 set aside – Matter remanded to Trial Court for framing additional issue and disposal on merits within two months – No order as to costs.

Writ Law - Prohibited Property List - Registration Act 1908 - Section 22-A(1)(c) - Alternative Remedy - Deletion of property from prohibited list - Petitioner purchased Ac.3.86 cents in Sy.No.34/1A-1 through registered sale deed in 2012 and obtained layout approval in 2013 - Sub-Registrar refused registration of subsequent sales to third parties on ground that land was listed as prohibited under Section 22-A(1)(c) - Assistant Commissioner of Endowments rejected petitioner's representation for deletion stating land belongs to Sri Kommuru Appadu Dora Trust - Petitioner contended Re-Survey Register (RSR) and revenue records show land as private property - Respondents argued land is recorded in the register maintained under Section 43 of A.P. Act 30 of 1987 and revenue records do not confer title - Held - When property is registered under Section 43 of the Endowments Act 1987 the remedy for an aggrieved party is to approach the Endowments Tribunal under Section 87 of the Act - High Court in writ jurisdiction cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact regarding title - Writ Petition dismissed as not maintainable - [Paras 1-11].

Writ Law - Endowments - A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institution and Endowments Act 1987 - Sections 43 and 46(3) - Presumption of correctness of entries - Petitioner claimed land based on RSR and mutation in revenue records - Respondents asserted property is listed in Trust register under Section 43 - Held - Under Section 46(3) of Act 30 of 1987 entries in the register are deemed genuine until contrary is established - Mutation or entry in revenue records does not confer title - RSR is only prima facie evidence - Dispute regarding inclusion of property in the register must be adjudicated by the Endowments Tribunal - [Paras 4-8].

Writ Law - Alternative Remedy - Endowments Tribunal - Ratio Decidendi - Division Bench and Full Bench precedents - Full Bench in Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary case and subsequent Division Bench orders established that grievances regarding entries in the register of properties maintained under Section 43 of Act 30 of 1987 must be redressed before the Endowments Tribunal under Section 45 read with Section 87 - Held - Remedy for deletion of entry in the register of properties which triggers prohibition under Section 22-A of the Registration Act lies exclusively before the Endowments Tribunal - [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Petitioner relegated to the Endowments Tribunal under Section 87 of the Act 30 of 1987 – No order as to costs.