Writ Law - Record of Rights - Orissa Survey and Settlement Rules 1962 - Rule 34 - Correction of ROR - Scope and Jurisdiction - Petitioners sought correction of ROR entries post-vesting of estate under OEA Act claiming cause of action arose upon confirmation of vesting and payment of compensation - Addl Tahasildar initially allowed correction but subsequently reviewed and set aside the order finding it was passed without jurisdiction as the cause of action predated final publication of ROR - Held - Rule 34 cannot be invoked for causes of action arising prior to final publication of ROR as such correction would circumvent statutory appeal/revision remedies - High Court upheld the review order as the initial order suffered from a jurisdictional error apparent on the face of the record - [Paras 24-32].

Writ Law - Review - Orissa Survey and Settlement Rules 1962 - Rule 43 - Error apparent on the face of record - Jurisdiction - Whether an order passed without jurisdiction can be reviewed - Held - Where an authority acts beyond its statutory jurisdiction in passing an order, such order is non-est and can be reviewed under Rule 43 as a patent mistake or grave error - The Tahasildar correctly exercised review jurisdiction to rectify the jurisdictional excess of his predecessor - [Paras 36-42].

Writ Law - Cause of Action - Limitation and Vesting - Effect of stay orders - Whether dismissal of challenge to vesting notification creates fresh cause of action - Petitioners contended cause of action for ROR correction accrued upon final dismissal of challenges to vesting by Supreme Court - Held - Dismissal of such challenges merely confirms the existence of the vesting notification from its original date and does not create a new cause of action - Stay orders during pendency of litigation do not wipe out the notification but only suspend operation - [Paras 28-29].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Order of the Addl. Tahasildar upheld – Petitioners granted liberty to agitate claims in appropriate forum.

Criminal Law - Recall of Witness - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 311 - Petitioner-accused sought to recall his own evidence as DW1 to mark documents after a previous application under Section 91 CrPC to summon the same records was dismissed on merits - Trial Court rejected the plea observing that it was a belated attempt to fill lacunae and prolong proceedings - High Court affirmed the order holding that power under Section 311 CrPC cannot be used to supplement a case after trial evidence is concluded - Held - No perversity in impugned order - Petitions dismissed - [Paras 8-12].

Criminal Law - Discretionary Power - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 311 - Scope of recall - Mere existence of power does not confer absolute right upon a party to have a witness recalled - Court must be satisfied that proposed evidence is essential for just decision and application is bona fide - Held - Discretion must be exercised judiciously - [Paras 8-12].

Criminal Law - Trial Procedure - Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 - Section 138 - Accused failed to elicit relevant material during cross-examination of complainant and subsequently sought to fill gaps after stage of arguments reached - Held - Allowing recall in such circumstances would permit a litigant to unfairly supplement evidence - [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Criminal petitions dismissed – The order of the Second Special Magistrate dated 22.05.2023 is confirmed – Trial Court directed to proceed with the adjudication of the complaint on merits.

Civil Law - Waqf Property - Waqf Act 1995 - Section 89 - Mandatory Notice - Suit instituted against Board of Auqaf for declaration and injunction without serving mandatory two-month notice in writing disclosing cause of action as per Section 89 of Waqf Act 1995 - Tribunal held notice to be defective and plaint failing to substantiate cause of action - High Court upheld the dismissal noting that non-compliance with mandatory notice provisions renders the suit unsustainable - Held - dismissal of suit justified - [Paras 30-31].

Civil Law - Burden of Proof - Evidence Act 1872 - Section 101 - Proof of Waqf Dedication - Plaintiffs claiming suit properties as Waqf failed to produce original Waqf deed or Tauliatnama to establish the nature of dedication or the specific terms regarding succession to Mutawalliship - Absence of documentary evidence prevents ascertainment of Wakif intention and legal standing of plaintiffs to seek declaration or management rights - Held - Tribunal correct in dismissing suit for lack of evidence - [Paras 24-31].

Writ Law - Supervisory Jurisdiction - Constitution of India - Article 227 - Scope of Revision - Petitioner sought relief based on Order VII Rule 7 CPC for correction of record-of-rights despite failure to prove core claim before Tribunal - High Court held that supervisory jurisdiction is limited to examining the legality and propriety of Tribunal decision and cannot function as a regular appellate court to grant reliefs not established by evidence during trial - Held - petition dismissed - [Paras 28-32].

Civil Law - Locus Standi - Civil Procedure Code 1908 - Order I Rule 8 - Representative Suit - Plaintiffs failed to prove their capacity as descendants of the Wakif or beneficiaries - Tribunal found plaintiffs did not establish their right to file the suit as committee Mutawallis or interested persons - Lack of documentary proof regarding Mutawalliship succession - Held - plaintiffs lacked locus standi to maintain the suit - [Paras 29-31].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – Judgment and decree of the Waqf Tribunal affirmed – No interference warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Criminal Law - NDPS Act - Interim Custody of Seized Vehicle - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Sections 497 and 503 - Petitioner-financier sought custody of vehicle used in commission of offence under Section 8/18 of NDPS Act citing default in loan repayment and hire-purchase agreement terms - Special Judge rejected application on ground that financier is not the registered owner - High Court upheld order noting that criminal court is not the forum to enforce civil contracts or repossession clauses of loan agreements - Held - Financier is not entitled to interim custody as they do not fall within the definition of owner or agent of the owner as contemplated by the Supreme Court in Bishwajit Dey v State of Assam - [Paras 1-18].

Criminal Law - Interpretation of Ownership - NDPS Act - Interim Release - Hypothecation of vehicle - Registration certificate indicating financier interest does not transfer absolute ownership - Held - Endorsement of hypothecation merely protects financial interest but does not confer locus standi for interim custody in criminal proceedings - [Paras 12-14].

Criminal Law - Precedents - NDPS Act - Interim Release - Principles of custody of vehicles - Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bishwajit Dey v State of Assam (2025) 3 SCC 241 clarified that only the owner or agent of the owner is entitled to claim interim custody of vehicles seized in NDPS cases - Held - Petitioner being neither owner nor agent lacks legal standing for Supurdaginama - [Paras 10-13].

Decision: Criminal Revision petition dismissed – Impugned order of the Special Judge affirmed.

Civil Law - Tenancy - West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1997 - Section 7 - Joint tenants - Petitioner landlord sought eviction on grounds of default - Trial court initially rejected Section 7 applications of defendant no 1 as time-barred - Subsequently trial court erroneously permitted defendant no 2 to file identical Section 7 applications ignoring that Section 7 creates a unified defence for joint tenants - High Court held that once Section 7 applications are rejected for one joint tenant on grounds of delay the same cannot be revived by another joint tenant as it violates mandatory statutory timelines - Impugned order set aside - Held - Trial court exceeded jurisdiction - [Paras 13-23].

Civil Law - Eviction - West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1997 - Section 7(1) and 7(2) - Limitation - Mandatory nature of deposit - Statutory period of one month for deposit of arrears is mandatory and cannot be extended by invoking Section 5 of Limitation Act or Section 151 of CPC - Once an eviction summons is served the obligation to deposit arises - Held - Limitation Act cannot aid a belated deposit - [Paras 19-22].

Evidence Law - Service of Summons - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 5 Rule 9 - Presumption of service - Service on one occupant is binding in the context of joint tenancy where the postal report indicates deliberate avoidance - Held - Trial court erred in ignoring postal records and granting fresh service which facilitated abuse of process - [Paras 3-8].

Decision: C.O. No. 4196 of 2025 allowed - Impugned orders dated 29.04.2025 and 11.09.2025 set aside to the extent of allowing belated Section 7 applications - Defence of defendants liable to be struck out for non-compliance with Section 7.

Criminal Law - Abetment of Suicide - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 306 and 498A - Deceased committed suicide by hanging - Allegations of physical and mental harassment levelled against husband and mother-in-law - Prosecution failed to produce any evidence of cruelty or specific acts of instigation - Complainant and family members admitted in cross-examination that no complaints of harassment were ever made by the deceased - Trial Court acquitted the accused - High Court held that in the absence of cogent material or evidence, statutory presumptions under Sections 113A and 113B of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be invoked - No illegality or perversity found in the acquittal order - Appeals dismissed - [Paras 1-31].

Evidence Law - Burden of Proof - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 106 - Special knowledge - Prosecution argued that accused had special knowledge of facts leading to suicide - High Court held that while Section 106 deals with facts specially within knowledge, it does not absolve the prosecution from discharging its initial burden of proving the commission of the offence beyond reasonable doubt - Mere presence in the house does not automatically raise a presumption of guilt without evidence of prior cruelty or instigation - Held - Prosecution failed to establish the foundational facts - [Paras 14-22].

Criminal Law - Appellate Power against Acquittal - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 378 - Principles of Re-appreciation - Appellate Court must respect the double presumption of innocence in favour of an accused - Interference is warranted only when findings are shown to be perverse or contrary to evidence - Trial Court correctly analyzed that medical evidence did not support allegations of physical assault - No grounds for reversal - Held - Acquittal confirmed - [Paras 25-30].

Decision: Appeals dismissed - Impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 13.03.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Surat, is confirmed - Bail bonds stand cancelled.

Review – CPC O.47 R.1 – No error apparent on record – attempt to reargue merits impermissible – abuse of process – review petition dismissed with ₹50,000 costs

Review – Scope and Limits – Error Apparent on Record – Review Petition Dismissed – Petitioner sought reconsideration of High Court’s order directing him to file proceedings before competent civil court – Held: Review is not an appeal in disguise; lies only for error apparent on record; attempt to reappraise facts impermissible – Review Petition dismissed [Paras 3-6].

Review – Abuse of Process – Costs Imposed – Petition filed despite settled law that review cannot reopen concluded findings – Court found attempt to misuse procedure and waste judicial time – Costs of ₹50,000 imposed on petitioner [Paras 7-9].

Civil Law - Succession - Indian Succession Act 1925 - Section 63 - Execution of Will - Testator executed a holographic Will bequeathing agricultural property to his nephew while making separate financial provisions for his wife - Trial court and first appellate court concurrently found the Will to be genuine based on testimony of three out of four attesting witnesses and expert forensic evidence - High Court held that the propounder successfully discharged the initial burden of proving due execution and dispelled suspicious circumstances - Mere ouster of a natural heir does not invalidate a Will if the testator provides a reasoned justification - Held - Concurrent findings of fact regarding validity of the Will upheld - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-27].

Evidence Law - Attestation and Proof - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 68 - Proof of Will - The respondent examined three out of four attesting witnesses who confirmed the testator was of sound disposing mind and that they signed in his presence - The Court held that non-examination of all attesting witnesses does not invalidate the Will as the law requires only one to be examined - Ocular testimony remained unrebutted by the appellant - Held - Due execution stands legally established - [Paras 7-17].

Civil Law - Suspicious Circumstances - Indian Succession Act 1925 - Section 63 - Burden of proof - Appellant contended that the exclusion of a legally wedded wife in favour of a nephew and the existence of space in the Will constituted suspicious circumstances - Court ruled that since the testator provided specific reasons for the ouster (preserving ancestral property within the paternal lineage and concerns over the wife’s loyalty to her own brothers) and made adequate financial provisions for her, the Will cannot be viewed as suspicious - Held - Will is a legal instrument meant to deviate from natural succession - [Paras 23-25].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts confirmed – No substantial question of law arises for interference.

Civil Law - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order IX Rule 13 - Setting aside ex parte order - Applicant filed for restoration of MJC case alleging junior advocate committed bona fide mistake by noting dates of wrong case in diary due to similarity in parties and dates - Trial Court rejected application doubting veracity of explanation - High Court upon review of evidence specifically finding that an application meant for the present case was erroneously filed in a different concurrent case file with court endorsement proving the confusion - Held - Litigant should not suffer for the bona fide mistake of counsel and sufficient cause for non-appearance was duly established - Impugned order set aside and matter restored - [Paras 1-16].

Civil Law - Practice and Procedure - Sufficient Cause - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order IX Rule 13 - Interpretation of sufficient cause - Court held that the objective of the judicial process is to provide substantial justice and technicalities should not prevent the court from correcting errors - Litigant cannot be punished for the negligence of the lawyer where the error is demonstrably bona fide - [Paras 11-13].

Evidence Law - Documentary Evidence - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 35 - Court records - Record of another case produced showing filing of an application in the wrong case file by the junior counsel - Held - This documentary evidence acts as conclusive proof of the bona fide nature of the confusion regarding the listing of dates - [Paras 9-13].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order dated 02/09/2024 and the ex parte order dated 29/09/2010 set aside – MJC No. 08/2009 restored to its original number for further proceedings.