Civil Law – Judgment on Admission – Order 12 Rule 6 CPC – Discretionary Power – Plaintiff claimed that opposite party was a licensee and defaulted in licence fee payment – Opposite party claimed tenancy at a lower rent and denied licensor-licensee relationship – Held: For invoking Order 12 Rule 6, there must be clear, unequivocal, and categorical admission – Mere production of rent collection book and payment of sums including maintenance and electricity charges cannot establish conclusive admission of rent amount or nature of relationship – Application rightly rejected by trial court [Paras 2, 8, 14, 19, 21–25, 33–36]

Tenancy Law – West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act – Applicability – Premises used for non-residential purpose with alleged rent exceeding ₹10,000 per month – Petitioner argued protection under the 1997 Act not available – Opposite party denied that rent exceeded ₹10,000 – Held: Disputed facts require trial – No conclusive admission on record to oust application of the Tenancy Act at this stage [Paras 6, 22–25]

Transfer of Property Act – Section 106 Notice – Requirement of Lessor-Lessee Relationship – Petitioner argued that notice to quit was served and admitted – Court held that such presumption under Section 106 TPA applies only when tenancy relationship is admitted – Here, licensor-licensee relationship claimed by petitioner and denied by opposite party – Hence, no ground to invoke Section 106 TPA or grant eviction under Order 12 Rule 6 [Paras 20, 27–29]

Precedents – Applicability – Petitioner relied on M/s. Signotron (India) Pvt. Ltd. where landlord-tenant relationship and notice under Section 106 TPA were admitted – Court held the present case was distinguishable since core facts were disputed – Discretion under Order 12 Rule 6 not improperly exercised [Paras 21, 35–36]

Decision: Civil revision dismissed – Trial court's rejection of Order 12 Rule 6 application upheld – No interference warranted under Article 227 – No costs.

Civil Law - Temple Property – Fraudulent Decree – Pujari’s Lack of Ownership – Decree dated 10.01.1997 obtained by suppression, forged will, and concealment of necessary parties – Fraud vitiates all judicial acts – Pujari only a manager, not owner – Deity is juristic person; property vests in deity with State as guardian – Res judicata not attracted – Trial Court justified in declaring earlier decree void ab initio – Appeal dismissed [Paras 35–45, 56–57].

Fraud on Court – Nullity of Decree – Principles – Held: Judgment and decree dated 10.01.1997 passed in Civil Suit No. 42-A/1996 obtained by deliberate suppression of necessary facts, non-disclosure of earlier litigation, concealment of rejection of forged will, and non-joinder of deity and Aukaf Committee – Applying S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu, A.V. Papayya Sastry, Smriti Madan Kansagra, Vishnu Vardhan, decree is void ab initio – Fraud unravels everything [Paras 35–41].

Temple/Deity Property – Juristic Ownership – Guardianship – Held: Murti Shri Ram Mandir is a juristic person and perpetual minor; property vests in deity; State acts as guardian for protection of endowed property – Suit correctly instituted through SDO as guardian – Valid in law [Paras 49–51].

Pujari – Status and Rights – Managerial but not Proprietary Rights – Held: Pujari is only a manager/custodian, not an owner; cannot acquire Bhumiswami rights; cannot claim through guru-chela lineage; revenue entries of possession do not confer title – Reliance placed on State of M.P. v. Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan Samiti (2021) 10 SCC 222, Mst. Kanchaniya, Kal Bhairav Trust [Paras 52–54].

Will of Guru Narayandas – Found Forged – Handwriting expert report (Ex. P/14), complaint (Ex. P/12), and admission of DW-1 establish fabrication – Gokuldas’ claim of succession rejected; his appointment as Pujari earlier set aside by Commissioner – His assertion of ownership illegal [Paras 40–41].

Res Judicata – Not Applicable – Held: Principle inapplicable where earlier decree obtained by fraud – Order dated 30.11.2006 already held suit maintainable; attained finality – Fraud is an exception to res judicata; decree can be challenged at any stage [Paras 42–44].

Order XXIII Rule 3-A CPC – No Bar – Earlier decree not a compromise decree; deity was not a party to earlier suit; therefore, bar under Rule 3-A does not apply [Para 43].

Revenue Records – Presumptive Value Only – Held: Revenue entries (Ex. D/1–D/68) show possession for management; cannot prove title – Property recorded as “Murti Shri Ram Mandir Mafi Okaf” (Ex. P/10) confirms ownership of deity – Follows Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society (2014) 2 SCC 269 [Paras 45–47].

Pujari’s Eligibility – Customary Tradition – Gokuldas’ two marriages violated celibate Nihang tradition of math; disqualified from claiming spiritual succession – No personal or hereditary right to property [Para 55].

Maintainability – Suit by Deity – Valid – Learned Trial Court correctly held suit maintainable and not hit by technical bars – State rightly represented deity as guardian [Paras 49–51].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 14.03.2007 affirming that decree dated 10.01.1997 was void ab initio upheld – Earlier decree obtained by fraud, concealment of essential facts, forged will, and non-joinder of necessary parties – Deity is owner of property; Pujari only a manager – Suit validly instituted through State as guardian – No error in Trial Court findings – No order as to costs – Pending IAs closed [Paras 56–57].

NDPS Act – Regular bail – Section 37 – Commercial quantity – Recovery of 710 kg poppy husk from vehicle – Petitioners Gurjeet Singh @ Bhura Fauji and Satguru Singh apprehended at spot – Co-accused Lali and Jagtar @ Kari @ Jagtar Singh implicated through disclosure statements – Challan filed and trial underway – Only 2 out of 34 witnesses examined and 15 given up – Held – Alleged quantity being commercial – and in view of nature and seriousness of offence – petitioners must satisfy twin conditions of Section 37(1)(b) NDPS Act – On material on record no reasonable ground made out to believe petitioners are not guilty – or that they are not likely to commit offence while on bail – Rigours of Section 37 not satisfied – Bail declined [Paras 3–6, 8–9, 9.3].

NDPS Act – Long incarceration – Article 21 – Regular bail on ground of custody length – Petitioners Gurjeet and Satguru in custody since 10.06.2024 – about 1½ years – Petitioners Lali and Jagtar in custody since March 2025 – about 8 months – Held – In view of recent Supreme Court decisions stressing gravity of organised drug trafficking and strict application of Section 37 NDPS Act – mere period of custody of 1½ years in case carrying punishment of 10–20 years cannot be termed unreasonably long – Long incarceration by itself not sufficient to dilute Section 37 requirements – especially where serious allegations and commercial quantity are involved [Paras 5–6, 8–9].

NDPS Act – Bail – Disclosure statements as sole basis for implication of some accused – Petitioners Lali and Jagtar @ Kari @ Jagtar Singh implicated only on basis of disclosure of co-accused – Argument that such implication is weak and that mandatory provisions not complied with – Held – At bail stage – in prosecution involving commercial quantity – Court not to conduct mini-trial – When overall material including recovery of huge commercial quantity and allegations of organised activity exist – disclosure-based implication alone does not enable satisfaction of twin conditions under Section 37 – No case made out for regular bail [Paras 4–6, 8–9].

Drugs Menace – Policy concern – Public health crisis – Supreme Court guidance – Court places reliance on UOI v. Namdeo Ashruba Nakade SLP (Crl.) No. 9792/2025 and UOI v. Vigin K. Varghese SLP (Crl.) No. 7768/2025 – noting Supreme Court’s emphasis that drug abuse is a pervasive global and national menace – destructive of youth and social fabric – and that Courts must be slow in granting bail in serious NDPS cases involving commercial quantity – unless statutory conditions are clearly met – Held – These principles weigh heavily against relaxation of Section 37 rigours in present case [Para 8(i)–(ii)].

Section 37 NDPS – Interpretation – High Court’s own precedent – Court reiterates principles laid down in Jaswinder Singh @ Kala v. State of Punjab CRM-M-33729-2025 = 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 4537 – that (i) twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b) are cumulative and in addition to ordinary bail tests – (ii) long incarceration may relax rigours only where delay is not attributable to accused and custody is truly excessive – and (iii) Court must sift material to form prima facie view but not enter into full-scale appreciation of evidence – Held – Applying these postulates to facts – petitioners fail to cross Section 37 threshold [Para 8(iii)].

Medical grounds for bail – NDPS – Petitioner Jagtar @ Kari @ Jagtar Singh – old fracture and chronic osteomyelitis – Medical board report indicates right tibia fracture operated 27 years back – implant in situ – fracture united – superficial chronic ulcer requiring regular dressing and antibiotics – ankle fixed in plantar flexion – walking with limp – no surgery required – Held – Condition neither serious nor life-threatening – treatment possible in jail – Medical ground insufficient to override rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act – Regular bail refused [Paras 5.1, 9.1–9.2].

Section 37 NDPS – Antecedents – Relevance – Custody certificates show petitioners Gurjeet and Satguru involved in other FIRs while Lali and Jagtar have no other FIRs – Held – Antecedents are relevant component of “likely to commit any offence while on bail” limb – prior involvement of some petitioners reinforces refusal of bail – For others with clean record – seriousness of role and commercial quantity still prevents satisfaction of first limb (reasonable grounds of non-guilt) – hence no bail to any petitioner [Paras 6, 9, 9.3].

Decision: Bail petitions dismissed – Petitions under Section 483 BNSS for regular bail in FIR No. 83 dated 10.06.2024 under Sections 15, 25 and 29 NDPS Act relating to recovery of 710 kg poppy husk rejected – Court holds that petitioners have failed to satisfy twin conditions under Section 37 NDPS Act – long custody and medical condition of one petitioner not sufficient to dilute statutory rigours in a commercial quantity case – Trial to proceed uninfluenced by any observations in order [Paras 9, 9.3, 10–11].

Criminal Law – Assault – Section 325 IPC – Section 324 IPC – Appellant Lalit Mahto assaulted the victim on the head with a spade causing grievous injury – Appellant Titu Mahto hit the victim on his back with the blunt side of the spade causing simple injury – Conviction under Sections 325 and 324 IPC respectively held proper – Trial court rightly acquitted appellants of Section 302 IPC as prosecution failed to connect death with the injuries due to non-examination of post-mortem doctor and Investigating Officer [Paras 13–19]

Criminal Procedure – Appeal Against Conviction – Scope of Interference – Appellants challenged conviction relying on sole eyewitness being interested witness – Court held that testimony of PW-1, nephew of deceased, was consistent and corroborated by medical evidence – Absence of other eyewitnesses or I.O. not fatal – Conviction sustained [Paras 9, 15, 18–19]

Evidence Act – Testimony of Interested Witness – Sole eyewitness was nephew of deceased – Court found testimony reliable and natural – No material elicited in cross-examination to discredit witness – Held: Relationship alone not sufficient ground to discard credible testimony [Para 15]

Sentencing – Modification – Leniency for Aged Accused – Appellant Lalit Mahto aged over 80 years, ailing, and faced trial for over 25 years – Court modified sentence under Section 325 IPC to period already undergone (5 months) – Appellant Titu Mahto’s sentence under Section 324 IPC (1 year RI) upheld – Directed to surrender within 45 days [Para 20–22]

Decision: Conviction of both appellants under Sections 325 and 324 IPC respectively affirmed – Sentence of appellant Lalit Mahto modified to period already undergone – Sentence of appellant Titu Mahto upheld – Appeal partly allowed.

Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Sale of Spurious Drug – Dealer Acquitted – Conviction set aside – Appellant, a licensed medical store owner, convicted for stocking and selling substandard chloroquine tablets – High Court held that appellant had discharged his burden under Section 19(3) by disclosing full chain of purchase from licensed dealer (M/s Bhuvan Pharma) and licensed manufacturer (Nectarine Pharmacy) – No evidence to show mens rea or knowledge on part of the appellant – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 20–22, 26, 29, 31]

Burden of Proof – Section 19(3) Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Compliance Proven – Appellant produced purchase bills showing medicine sourced from licensed wholesaler, who in turn purchased from the manufacturer – Wholesaler confirmed sale to appellant – Manufacturer confirmed sale to wholesaler – Held: Appellant had no reason to suspect drug quality and had met statutory compliance under Section 19(3) and Section 19-A (U.P. Amendment) [Paras 20, 22, 26, 29]

Drug Sample Analysis – Failure to Test Manufacturer's Control Sample – Benefit of Doubt – Though Drug Inspector seized 118 tablets from same batch at Nectarine Pharmacy, he failed to send those samples to Central Drug Laboratory – Reliance solely on manufacturer’s internal test report found insufficient – Held: No valid comparative basis to conclude drugs at appellant’s shop were not from same batch – Benefit of doubt extended to appellant [Paras 27–28, 30–31]

Prosecution Lapses – Absence of Independent Witnesses – Coercion Alleged – No independent witnesses present during seizure or sampling – Appellant claimed samples not prepared in his presence, and he was threatened with MISA detention during Emergency – Court found procedural irregularities and lack of transparency by Drug Inspectors – Prosecution’s case not free from doubt [Paras 16, 18, 24, 26]

Mens Rea – Not Attributable to Appellant – Manufacturer Liable – No evidence to show appellant knew the drugs were substandard – Held: Only manufacturer responsible for quality control – Dealer cannot be held liable where proper source of purchase is established and statutory burden is discharged [Paras 20–22, 31]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and sentence dated 09.02.1984 set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges under Section 27(a)(ii) and 27(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Bail bonds cancelled and sureties discharged [Paras 32–33]

Service Law – Recruitment Process – Cancellation – Petitioner and selected candidate secured equal marks in MBK selection – Petitioner alleged fabrication of marks to favour Opposite Party No.6 – Inquiry by District Project Manager confirmed irregularities – Collector directed re-evaluation of selection process following government guidelines – Held: In case of tainted selection, entire process must be scrapped – No one, including petitioner, can claim benefit under an illegal selection [Paras 2, 3, 6, 8]

Administrative Law – Fair Selection Process – Duty to Adhere to Guidelines – Collector acted upon inquiry report revealing non-transparent selection and guideline violations – Directed fresh selection – Held: Mandating appointment of petitioner without valid selection would amount to endorsing illegality – Petitioner free to participate in fresh process [Paras 6, 8]

Constitutional Law – Writ of Mandamus – Scope – Petitioner sought mandamus for appointment despite proven irregularities – Court held that relief cannot be granted where selection process itself is vitiated – Principles of fairness and transparency must prevail – Petition devoid of merit [Paras 8, 9]

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Order of Collector dated 11.03.2022 upheld – Petitioner not entitled to appointment based on tainted selection – Permitted to participate in fresh selection if not already concluded.

Matrimonial Law – Divorce – Dismissal of Husband’s Petition – Grounds of Cruelty and Desertion – Appellant/Husband filed for dissolution of marriage under Section 10 of the Divorce Act – Alleged that wife refused to care for his parents, expressed dissatisfaction over financial issues, and deserted him – Family Court dismissed the petition – Held: Grounds of cruelty and desertion not established by the appellant [Paras 1–2, 4–9]

Desertion – Wife’s Departure for Delivery Not Voluntary Desertion – Wife returned from Dubai to parental home due to pregnancy-related complications – Appellant admitted this in cross-examination – Court held that such return for delivery is a common familial practice and cannot be construed as desertion – Filing for divorce before even the child’s birth showed absence of genuine effort to resolve issues – Divorce on ground of desertion rightly rejected [Paras 3–6, 8]

Cruelty – Allegations Found Baseless – Appellant failed to produce credible evidence of cruelty – Claims that wife quarrelled over financial matters and neglected his parents were not substantiated – Court found these to be routine marital disagreements – Trial court preferred testimony of wife over that of husband after observing demeanour – No perversity found in lower court's findings [Paras 4, 7–9]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No interference warranted with Family Court’s decision – Divorce rightly denied as appellant failed to prove cruelty or desertion – [Para 9].

Criminal Law – Identification of Accused – Dock Identification vs. TIP – Held: Dock identification of an accused, who is a stranger to the witness, without a prior Test Identification Parade (TIP), is a weak piece of evidence. Where the complainant failed to identify the appellant in the TIP proceedings but identified him in Court after a gap of more than 3 years, such identification casts a shadow of doubt. The failure to identify in TIP and subsequent identification in Court renders the evidence unreliable. – [Paras 12-13]

Criminal Law – Section 397 IPC – Proof of Use of Weapon – Specific Context: Allegation of using a knife during robbery – Held: The complainant’s testimony regarding the role of the appellant was inconsistent. While the complainant attributed the use of a knife to the appellant in Court, he had failed to identify him earlier. Furthermore, no recovery of the weapon or robbed articles was effected from the appellant. In the absence of reliable identification and corroborative recovery, the conviction under Section 397 IPC cannot be sustained. – [Paras 12-14]

Criminal Law – Benefit of Doubt – Inconsistent Testimony – Held: The complainant made improvements in his testimony regarding the role of co-accused, leading to the co-accused's acquittal. Similar inconsistencies and the failure of identification in TIP regarding the appellant entitle him to the benefit of doubt. – [Paras 13-14]

Decision: Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted. [Para 15]

Civil Procedure – Ex Parte Decree – Refusal to Accept Summons – Presumption of Service – Summons sent to Appellant’s known addresses returned with endorsements of “refused” – Legal notices had also been previously served at same addresses – Appellant failed to rebut presumption of valid service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act – Held: Service was duly effected, and ex parte decree justified [Paras 23–34, 42–44, 49].

Limitation – Condonation of Delay – Order 9 Rule 13 CPC – Delay of 43 days in filing application to set aside ex parte decree not supported by sufficient cause – Conduct showed negligence and lack of bona fides – Court reiterates that “sufficient cause” must be proven with due diligence and not invoked casually [Paras 18, 46–50].

Civil Procedure – Refusal of Summons – Legal Presumption – Court reiterates legal principle that refusal to accept summons amounts to valid service – Relied on Parimal v. Veena, (2011) 3 SCC 545 and Vishwabandhu v. Sri Krishna, (2021) 19 SCC 549 – No evidence of impeccable character adduced by Appellant to rebut legal presumption of service [Paras 40–44, 48–49].

Civil Procedure – Bona Fides and Diligence – Appellant failed to appear or respond until execution commenced – Alleged lack of knowledge disproved by tracking reports and prior service – Plea of false address and lack of notice rejected as frivolous – Court held that appellant’s conduct reflected clear neglect [Paras 35, 37–39, 50].

Civil Procedure – Ex Parte Decree – Requisites under Order IX Rule 13 – Either improper service or sufficient cause must be established – Both not satisfied in present case – High Court upholds Trial Court’s rejection of application to set aside decree [Paras 12, 48, 51].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC rightly rejected – Ex parte decree stands confirmed – Pending applications rendered infructuous