Civil Law -  Injunction Suit – Co-sharers in Joint Land – No Obstruction or Illegal Construction Proved – Appeal Dismissed – Plaintiff, a co-sharer, filed suit for injunction alleging defendants were raising construction on valuable land near main road during pending partition proceedings – Trial Court and First Appellate Court found construction was completed long before plaintiff’s purchase in 2019 and that defendants had bought specific khasra numbers through registered sale deeds – No proof of obstruction or fresh construction adduced – Held: Plaintiff failed to show unlawful interference or right to injunction – No substantial question of law arises – Second appeal dismissed [Paras 2–11].

Injunction Suit – Joint Property – Relief Not Maintainable – Possession of Specific Khasra Numbers by Co-sharers – Admitted Construction Prior to Plaintiff’s Purchase – Held: Plaintiff, who bought land after construction was completed, cannot seek injunction on vague allegations – Lower courts correctly held plaintiff had not approached court with clean hands – Injunction rightly denied [Paras 7–9].

Evidence – No Proof of Obstruction – Plaintiff Failed to Prove Passage Was Blocked – Plaintiff did not plead or prove that any path was being obstructed by construction – Admitted during arguments that construction existed prior to his purchase – Held: No factual basis for injunction claim – Concurrent findings upheld [Paras 7, 10].

Limitation of Appeal – No Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent Findings on Facts – Both courts found that defendants held registered title to specific plots and had raised construction much before plaintiff’s purchase – Held: No legal error or perversity in findings – No question of law arises under Section 100 CPC – Appeal dismissed [Para 11].

Limitation Law - Condonation of Delay – Section 5 Limitation Act – Delay of 247 Days Condoned with Costs – Petitioner claimed ignorance of first appellate court judgment due to non-intimation by counsel; stated that certified copy was obtained only after enquiry, and filing was delayed further due to illness – Respondents opposed citing lack of medical proof and insufficient explanation – Held: Length of delay immaterial; acceptability of explanation is decisive – Justice-oriented approach requires opportunity to decide lis on merits unless negligence, deliberate inaction, or misconduct is established – Delay condoned subject to payment of ₹5,000 costs to compensate respondent’s hardship [Paras 6-8].

Principles – Liberal but Cautious Approach – Court reiterated that condonation is discretionary; sufficient cause must be established, but discretion can be exercised to advance substantial justice – Applied SC precedents in State of M.P. v. Ramkumar Choudhary (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3612), Balwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh, Pathapati Subba Reddy v. Special Deputy Collector (2024 SCC OnLine SC 513), and Raheem Shah v. Govind Singh ((2023) 18 SCC 764) [Paras 5-7].

Decision – Delay condoned; petitioner to pay ₹5,000 to respondent/plaintiff or their counsel by 04.08.2025; failing which, petition stands dismissed [Para 8].

Civil Law  – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Statutory Notices (s.80 CPC, s.280 ZP Act, s.180 MVP Act) – Plaint Rejected – Respondent filed suit on 30.07.2024 challenging eviction steps (order 01.03.2024; notice 15.07.2024) after issuing notice dated 24.07.2024 – Held: Pre-suit notice requirements under s.80 CPC (two months, waiver only per s.80(2)) and under s.280 ZP Act / s.180 MVP Act (three months; no waiver power) are mandatory – No pleadings of urgency/waiver; post facto waiver plea (Exh-48) inconsequential – Trial court erred in refusing O7 R11 – Order quashed; plaint rejected [Paras 2–6, 8–13, 14, 22].

Statutory Notice – Section 80 CPC vs. Section 280 ZP Act / Section 180 MVP Act – Waiver Distinction – Two-month notice under s.80 CPC is mandatory but may be waived only with leave u/s 80(2); by contrast, ZP Act/MVP Act notice periods have no waiver provision – Trial court lacked jurisdiction to dispense with those notices – Suit within nine days of notice is non-maintainable [Paras 9–13].

Pleadings & Timing – No Urgency/Dispensation Pleaded – Post-facto Application Ineffective – Plaint contained no averment of urgency or waiver; Exh-48 seeking s.80(2) leave filed months after O7 R11 rejection – cannot cure initial defect; moreover, waiver not possible for ZP Act/MVP Act notices [Paras 10, 12, 14].

Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Trial Court’s Error of Jurisdiction – Reversal – Trial court considered only s.80(2) CPC and ignored the mandatory, non-waivable notices under special statutes – Findings termed perverse; plaint liable to rejection [Paras 12–13, 22].

Precedents – Distinguished – Pioneer Builders (AIR 2007 SC 113) concerned s.80 CPC and post-leave decree; Sudhir Kumar Sharma (MANU/SC/0892/2013) inapplicable as s.80(2) plea was not pending here and special statute notices applied; other authorities on s.80 CPC alone (Ghulam Rasool; Chandrashekhar P. Rathi; Vasant Ambadas Pandit; K.K. Sharma) not helpful [Paras 15–21].

Decision – Civil Revision allowed – Impugned order dated 01.10.2024 quashed – Plaint in RCS No.652/2024 rejected [Para 22].

Civil Writ - Redevelopment – Jurisdiction under Section 79-A of MHAD Act – Notices Held Illegal – Petitioners challenged large-scale issuance of redevelopment notices by MHADA’s Executive Engineers under Section 79-A without following mandatory preconditions – Held: Such notices are ex-facie illegal as jurisdiction under Section 79-A is triggered only upon declaration of a building as dangerous either by the Municipal Corporation under Section 354 of the MMC Act or by a Competent Authority under MHAD Act; visual inspection by Executive Engineers cannot substitute this statutory requirement [Paras 3-6, 22-25].

Delegation of Authority – Executive Engineer’s Power – No Statutory Basis – The Court found that Executive Engineers had no statutory jurisdiction under the MHAD Act to issue Section 79-A notices – Held: Such authority lies solely with the Board and not with Executive Engineers; SOP dated 05/12/2024 issued by Vice-Chairman was without jurisdiction and cannot override statute – SOP declared contrary to the scheme of the MHAD Act and ultra vires [Paras 26, 28-30].

Violation of Fundamental Rights – Article 300A and Article 14 – Property Rights Affected – The Court held that issuance of notices without statutory backing violated stakeholders’ right to property under Article 300A and equality under Article 14 of the Constitution – Arbitrary and mass issuance of notices amounts to serious breach of rule of law [Paras 19-21, 33].

Remedial Measures – Inquiry Ordered – Committee Appointed – Considering the gravity of the illegalities, the Court appointed an independent Committee headed by Justice J. P. Devadhar (Retd.) and Shri Vilas Dongre (Retd. Principal District Judge) to examine the issuance of 935 notices under Section 79-A, assess culpability, and the legality of the SOP issued by Vice-Chairman – Directed MHADA to furnish all relevant records – 46 post-judgment notices withdrawn; remaining 889 notices to be kept in abeyance [Paras 33(i)–(x)].

Final Decision – Notices Stayed – Inquiry Initiated – The High Court stayed the operation of all impugned notices not already withdrawn and directed full inquiry into legality and mala fides behind the mass issuance – Petitioners' rights protected pending report – Request for stay of order rejected considering the seriousness of the issue [Paras 33(v), 35].

Civil Law – Damages Suit - Electrocution Death – Strict Liability – Appeal Allowed – Trial Court awarded ₹5,08,400/- compensation to widow, children, and mother of deceased who fell from open terrace onto high-tension wire—High Court held that principle of strict liability under Rylands v. Fletcher and M.C. Mehta v. Union of India not applicable where accident was due to victim’s own negligence (volenti non fit injuria) and unrelated to operation or maintenance fault of electricity line—Failure to construct parapet wall was building owner’s duty; claim also bad for non-joinder of other 19 co-owners—Suit dismissed; no costs [Paras 7-15].

Scope of Strict Liability – Not Absolute – Court clarified that strict liability cannot extend to situations involving clear contributory negligence or voluntary exposure to danger—Electricity Board’s duty arises only where accident occurs in connection with its operations or maintenance [Paras 10-12, 14].

Non-Joinder of Necessary Parties – Fatal Defect – Only one of 20 co-owners of building impleaded as defendant; defect vitiated claim against building owner as well [Para 13].

Decision – Appeal allowed; judgment and decree in O.S. No. 47 of 2017 set aside; suit dismissed; miscellaneous petition closed; no costs [Para 15].

Employment Law - Compassionate Appointment – Married Daughter – Dependency Requirement – Appeal Partly Allowed – Deceased Eastern Coalfields employee’s widow (aged above 45), married daughter, and son-in-law sought compassionate appointment under NCWA—Clause 9.3.3 (excluding married daughters) declared unconstitutional by Single Judge with prospective effect; claims rejected for lack of dependency proof—Division Bench held marital status irrelevant but dependency at time of death is condition precedent; married daughter and son-in-law produced no evidence of co-residence or financial reliance; findings of suppression of address documents stood unshaken—Rejection upheld—Widow entitled to monetary compensation under NCWA if applied within 30 days [Paras 13-17, 22, 25-27].

Interpretation of NCWA – Even after striking down Clause 9.3.3, remaining clauses 9.3.0, 9.3.1, 9.3.2, 9.3.4, and 9.5.0 limit benefit to dependents—Dependency must be established by evidence; burden lies on claimant [Paras 15-17, 22].

Precedent Distinction – Sukumoni Hembram and Subhadra cases inapplicable where dependency not proved; those cases involved unmarried daughters admittedly dependent on deceased [Para 19].

Relief to Widow – As per NCWA, widow above 45 years entitled to monetary compensation, not appointment—Direction issued to grant compensation with arrears within 90 days upon application [Para 27].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed; rejection of claims of married daughter and son-in-law upheld; direction issued to release monetary compensation to widow on application; no costs [Paras 26-28].

Anticipatory Bail – Sections 318(4), 336(3), 340(2), and 61(2) of the BNS - Alleged Facilitation of VISA Fraud – Bail Granted – The Applicant, a proprietor of an IELTS coaching centre, was accused of providing forged academic and financial documents to a student for submission to the U.S. Embassy – Held: The petitioner had joined the investigation on multiple occasions, and key electronic devices had been seized – No material indicated active creation of forged documents – No custodial interrogation warranted – Anticipatory bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 1, 8–11, 28–33].

Nature of Evidence – Lack of Direct Involvement in Forgery – Protection Extended – Though the co-accused admitted use of forged documents, there was no direct or circumstantial evidence linking the Applicant to the actual act of forgery – Chats recovered showed document forwarding, but not fabrication – Supreme Court’s judgment in Munna Prasad Verma followed to hold that use or transmission of suspect documents, absent evidence of their creation, is insufficient to establish criminality [Paras 19–23, 30].

Investigation Stage – Material Evidence Already Seized – No Justification for Arrest – The prosecution failed to show that any further recovery or custodial interrogation was necessary – Printer, mobile phone, and SIM card already seized – Applicant not a flight risk – Investigation at an advanced stage – Bail refusal would amount to undue hardship [Paras 6, 8, 23, 29, 31].

Applicant’s Conduct – Sufficient Cooperation Shown – Absence Explained – Though the Applicant missed initial summons due to medical condition, he later joined the investigation on several dates – Lack of cooperation not established on record – Recovery of WhatsApp messages did not contradict petitioner’s version that documents were merely forwarded and not fabricated [Paras 5, 6, 11, 19, 23].

Final Relief – Anticipatory Bail Granted with Conditions – Court held that the Applicant should not be arrested – Directed that in the event of arrest, he be released on personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- – Required to cooperate with investigation, keep mobile active, and avoid contact with witnesses – Bail granted to ensure fairness without compromising the investigation [Paras 32–33].

Matrimonial Law - Confidentiality in Matrimonial Proceedings – Section 22 of HMA – Scope of “Publication” – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant-husband alleged that the respondent-wife, her brother, and her employer disclosed confidential details of matrimonial litigation and custody disputes to third parties, violating Section 22 – Family Court found disclosures were made in the course of defending against legal proceedings initiated by the appellant and not printed or published in the public domain – Held: Section 22 aims to prevent public dissemination of matrimonial details; bona fide references in legal or administrative proceedings do not constitute prohibited publication – No breach made out [Paras 3-4, 10-14].

Right to Privacy vs. Right to Fair Trial – Disclosures made to authorities, employer, and in POCSO complaint – Court held such references were relevant for defence and not intended for public circulation – Section 22 cannot be used as a shield to suppress material facts in related proceedings [Paras 12, 14].

Burden of Proof – Failure to Establish Public Dissemination – Appellant unable to show any instance of printing or public circulation of matrimonial details – Allegations insufficient to attract statutory bar under Section 22 [Paras 13-14].

Decision – No ground to interfere with Family Court’s order – Appeal dismissed – Observations not to affect merits of pending matrimonial case [Paras 15-17].

Deemed Conveyance – Developer's Right to Future Development Protected – Petition Allowed – The District Deputy Registrar’s order granting deemed conveyance of 3422 sq.m. land to the Society was challenged by the Developer claiming it undermined ongoing third-phase development – Held: Developer had valid commencement certificate and members had contractually consented to further construction – Deemed conveyance should have been restricted to the constructed area of Building No.1 and undivided share – Order quashed and matter remanded to Competent Authority [Paras 8–9, 15, 18–21].

MOFA Consent Clauses – Flat Purchasers’ Consent to Future Development – Clauses in Agreements Enforceable – Registered agreements contained express clauses permitting the Promoter to utilize unconsumed FSI and carry out further construction – Held: Society members cannot now claim that further construction is illegal or unconsented – Promoter entitled to continue lawful development [Paras 11–14].

Application of Government Resolution – GR Dated 22/06/2018 – Not Applicable Where Full Layout Not Disclosed – Society relied on clause 2(C)(vi) of the GR to claim conveyance of entire land – Held: Resolution applies only when all planned buildings are disclosed – As second building was not reflected in earlier plans, full land conveyance was not justified – Only proportionate area conveyable [Paras 5.3–5.5].

Planning Permission and FSI – Valid Commencement Certificate Confirms Legality – Developer’s Claim of Residual FSI Accepted – Society's argument that no FSI remained was untenable – Corporation had sanctioned development of second building after due scrutiny – Held: Existence of valid CC defeats Society's claim of illegality [Paras 14, 18].

Society's Grievances on Amenities – Irrelevant to Conveyance Decision – Issues of drainage, fire systems, and parking raised by Society were held to be separate disputes – These could not affect Developer’s lawful right to develop nor justify blanket conveyance – Court declined to mix private grievances with land ownership issues [Paras 10, 13–14].

Developer’s Offer to Execute Partial Conveyance – Court Recognized as Fair and Legal – Promoter had expressed readiness to convey constructed portion and execute full deed post-completion of second building – Court accepted this as a legally sound and equitable approach – Fresh conveyance directed accordingly [Para 16].

Final Decision – Deemed Conveyance Order Quashed – Registered Deed Cancelled – The order dated 17/06/2022 granting full land conveyance to the Society was quashed – Registered deed dated 01/07/2022 cancelled – Competent Authority directed to issue fresh order granting deemed conveyance only for Building No.1's constructed area and common portions – Six-week stay granted to enable Society to file appeal [Paras 20–23].