Matrimonial Law - Review – Divorce on ground of desertion – Limited correction of factual inaccuracy in appellate judgment – Held: factual clarification does not affect finding of desertion – review disposed of with modification of one paragraph only [Paras 1–12].

Review Jurisdiction – Scope – Article 227 Constitution read with Section 114 and Order XLVII CPC – Review not an appeal in disguise – Permissible only for error apparent on face of record, discovery of new evidence, or analogous sufficient reason – Re-appreciation of evidence or rehearing on merits impermissible [Paras 6–8].

Family Law – Divorce – Desertion – Appreciation of evidence – Finding of desertion based on cumulative conduct and totality of circumstances – Isolated or marginal factual error not sufficient to unsettle final conclusion on desertion [Paras 5, 8].

Error Apparent on Face of Record – Meaning – Must be patent and self-evident – Error requiring elaborate reasoning or capable of two views cannot be corrected in review – Reliance placed on Supreme Court precedent reiterating narrow contours of review jurisdiction [Paras 7–8].

Correction of Judgment – Limited Modification – Appellate court acknowledged factual inaccuracy regarding prior intimation of wife’s relocation abroad – Paragraph 50(c) of earlier judgment modified to remove erroneous factual assertion – Clarified that such correction has no bearing on outcome of case [Paras 4, 8–9].

Effect of Review Order – Clarificatory – Modified paragraph to be read consistently throughout judgment under review – No reopening of findings or decree of divorce – Remaining grounds not pressed and found generic [Paras 9–10].

Decision: Review Petition disposed of – Limited modification made to paragraph 50(c) of judgment dated 22.09.2025 – No interference with decree of divorce – No order as to costs [Paras 11–12].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Non Bailable Warrants – NDPS Prosecution – Legality of Arrest Warrants – Proclaimed Offender Declaration – Petitioner not named in FIR but implicated through second disclosure of co-accused pharmacist – Initially placed in column No.2 of the charge-sheet – Non-bailable warrants issued by Magistrate and petitioner declared proclaimed person under Section 82 Cr.P.C. – Held: In absence of proper service of notice or summons, declaration of proclaimed person is illegal – Further held that Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to issue such warrants under Section 36-A(1)(b) NDPS Act at investigation stage – Impugned orders quashed subject to costs [Paras 1, 2, 5].

Criminal Law – Disclosure Statement – Evidentiary Value – Petitioner named only in co-accused’s custodial disclosure – Held: Disclosure of co-accused not substantive evidence – Cannot form basis for prosecution without independent corroboration – Reliance placed on settled precedent including Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu [Paras 2, 5].

Criminal Procedure – Section 73 Cr.P.C. – Arrest Warrant for Aid of Investigation – Challenge to issuance of arrest warrant in absence of cognizance – Held: Warrants cannot be issued merely to aid investigation – Any such power must be exercised strictly as per law – Trial court’s action coram non judice [Para 2].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned orders dated 26.09.2023, 16.10.2023, 30.11.2023, 06.01.2024, 06.02.2024 and 28.03.2024 and all proceedings arising therefrom quashed – Petitioner directed to deposit Rs.5,00,000 as costs with four institutions – On compliance and appearance before Trial Court within 10 days, petitioner to be released on bail during trial – Protection from arrest for 10 days granted – Failing compliance, order stands recalled and petition deemed dismissed [Paras 5-7].

Civil Law - Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Partition suit based on plea of acquisition from joint family funds – Defendants sought rejection of plaint for no cause of action and limitation – Held: plaint pleaded foundational facts and limitation was a mixed question – rejection refused – appeal dismissed [Paras 20-39].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC – “Cause of action” test – Court to undertake meaningful reading of plaint as a whole and documents relied upon – Truthfulness of allegations not to be examined – Only whether averments disclose right to sue – Plaint cannot be dissected sentence-wise and read in isolation – Defence in written statement/application irrelevant [Paras 20-23, 25, 27-28].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC – Suit barred by law – Bar must be evident from plaint statements – Where limitation/statutory bar not ex facie apparent and requires evidence, plaint not rejectable – Continuation termed abuse only when bar is apparent on face of plaint [Paras 22, 25, 36-38].

Partition – Pleadings – Joint family / hotchpotch plea – Requirement of material particulars – Distinguishing prior Delhi High Court precedents – Where plaint specifically pleads source of acquisition as joint family funds and sale proceeds of पिता’s properties, foundational facts sufficient – Sagar Gambhir and Sunny (Minor) distinguished as plaint there lacked essential particulars like creation of HUF, succession chain etc. [Paras 30-33].

Limitation – Partition suit – Article 113 Limitation Act – Right to sue accrues upon refusal of demand for partition – Cause of action recurring so long as joint status subsists – Plaint averred partition discussions in 2018 and refusal thereafter – At Order VII Rule 11 stage, such averments to be accepted – Suit not barred on face of plaint [Paras 35-37].

Partition v. Challenge to title documents – Defendants argued suit indirectly challenges old registered documents – Held: plaint did not seek to set aside title deeds – Plaintiff asserted share on basis of joint family funds – Relief remains partition, not cancellation – Limitation objection therefore not determinable at threshold [Paras 34-36].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Impugned order declining rejection of plaint upheld – Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC rightly dismissed [Paras 38-39].

Hindu Law – Composite Family – Proof of – Mere living together and joint cultivation insufficient – Absence of express agreement or conduct incompatible with individual identity – Plaintiff's failure to prove composite family or that properties were purchased from composite family funds – Trial Court's finding of composite family based on mere cohabitation held perverse – High Court reversed the finding [Paras 29, 31, 32, 34, 40].

Property Law – Sale Deed – Validity and Title – Registered sale deed of 1906 for Rs.440/- held valid and not nominal – Plaintiff's contention of nominality and lack of solvency of vendee rejected as baseless for 1906 – Unchallenged old registered sale deeds (over 50 years) confer absolute right and title – Possession and revenue records supporting defendant's ownership – High Court upheld the validity of the sale deeds and defendant's title [Paras 14, 15, 21, 26, 37, 38, 39, 41].

Evidence Act – Agreement to Partition (Ex.X-1) – Admissibility and Conclusiveness – Mere admission of signature on an agreement to partition properties in future is not conclusive proof of title – Such an agreement, without mentioning specific properties or survey numbers, is unknown to law and does not accrue rights – Admission of parties does not confer title in immovable property without a registered document – Ex.X-1 held not binding on defendants [Paras 26, 28, 30, 39, 40, 41].

Civil Procedure Code – Partition Suit – Entitlement to Relief – Plaintiff's failure to prove composite family, nominality of sale deeds, or purchase from composite family funds – Defendant's established title and exclusive possession through registered sale deeds and revenue records – Plaintiff not a coparcener or joint owner – High Court concluded plaintiff not entitled to partition [Paras 22, 23, 26, 38, 41, 42].

Civil Procedure Code – Permanent Injunction Suit – Entitlement to Relief – Defendant (plaintiff in injunction suit) proved settled and exclusive possession of plaint schedule properties through registered sale deeds and payment of Cist – Entitled to permanent injunction against interference – High Court decreed the suit for permanent injunction [Paras 42, 43].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Suit for partition dismissed – Suit for permanent injunction decreed – Paras 44, 45.

Civil Law – First appeal in Waqf title/possession suits – Additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 – Gazette Notification (30/11/1961) sought by Waqf Board and ryotwari patta/revenue proceedings and prior decree sought by defendants – Held: documents being crucial public documents, admissible as additional evidence – suits remanded for proof and fresh decision – trial court decree set aside [Paras 14-28, 29-32].

Additional Evidence – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Scope – Though appellate court ordinarily does not travel beyond trial record, additional evidence may be permitted where required to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause – Court may allow evidence even if it can decide on existing record, if interests of justice require filling up obscurity or lacuna – requirement is of the court upon appreciation of the record – K. Venkataramiah principle applied [Paras 21-23].

Waqf Property – Gazette Notification – Public document – Waqf Board sought to file attested Gazette Notification dated 30/11/1961 showing suit land notified as Waqf – document pre-dated suits and was directly relevant to determination of character/title of property – receiving notification as additional evidence would not cause prejudice as opposite party gets opportunity to meet and cross-examine – delay not a ground to reject when crucial to settle dispute [Paras 18-25].

Defendants’ Additional Evidence – Ryotwari patta proceedings and related revenue/writ records – Defendants sought reception of copies of Settlement Officer proceedings dated 29/04/1981, Commissioner (Survey/Settlement/Land Records) proceedings dated 03/05/1982, W.P.No.13562/1990 order dated 19/09/1990, MRO proceedings Rc.No.371/1990 dated 08/10/1990 and letter dated 22/10/1991, and judgment/decree in O.S.No.114/1943 dated 21/07/1944 – held to be public documents, prior in time to suit, and crucial in possession/title dispute – allowed subject to proof and relevancy – parties must prove existence, authenticity, genuineness and contents in accordance with law [Paras 26-28].

Remand – Common judgment in three suits – Additional evidence crucial to real controversy – Since both sides allowed to adduce additional evidence, matter required fresh consideration by trial court after proof of documents – common decree dated 31/03/2001 set aside – O.S.Nos.75, 76 and 77 of 1995 restored and remanded – trial court directed to permit additional evidence, hear parties, and decide on merits uninfluenced by earlier findings – records to be transmitted – no costs [Paras 29-32].

Decision: A.S.Nos.1725, 1726 & 1727 of 2001 allowed – I.A.No.1 of 2025 (by Waqf Board) allowed – I.A.No.1 of 2023 (by defendants) allowed – Common judgment and decree dated 31/03/2001 set aside – Suits remanded to Senior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili for fresh disposal after proof of additional documents – No order as to costs – Miscellaneous petitions closed [Paras 31-32].

Service Law – Departmental Proceedings – Delay in Charge-sheet – Petitioner challenged two charge-sheets issued in 2019 and 2024 for alleged fraudulent medical reimbursements from 2010-2015 – Contended that unexplained delay of nearly a decade renders the action invalid – Held: Mere delay is not sufficient to quash disciplinary proceedings unless prejudice is shown – Considering seriousness of charges involving forged medical documents and misuse of public funds, proceedings are valid [Paras 5–17].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Double Jeopardy – Allegation that issuance of charge-sheets after earlier show cause notice amounts to double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution – Held: No prior punishment or prosecution initiated on basis of earlier documents – Hence, subsequent departmental proceedings do not violate Article 20(2) [Paras 18–22].

Departmental Enquiry – Validity of Multiple Charge-sheets – Second charge-sheet (2024) contained same allegations as first (2019) – Court noted no enquiry was conducted under 2019 charge-sheet – Held: Second charge-sheet presumed to supersede earlier – Enquiry to continue under 2024 charge-sheet – No illegality found [Paras 20–21].

Malafide Allegation – Petitioner claimed bias on part of respondent officer – Court found only vague assertions without supporting material – Held: Bald allegation of mala fide not sufficient to quash administrative action [Para 23].

Precedents – Delay in Initiating Proceedings – Petitioner relied on MP High Court decisions quashing delayed charge-sheets – Court distinguished them on facts – Held: No universal rule to quash charge-sheets solely due to delay – Each case must be decided based on gravity of charges and circumstances – Serious financial misconduct warrants enquiry [Paras 24–25].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Charge-sheet dated 12/12/2024 upheld – Respondents allowed to continue enquiry under said charge-sheet – Directed to conclude proceedings expeditiously – Interim relief stands vacated.

Education Law – Admission to Professional Courses – B.Sc. Nursing – SEBC/OBC Category – Eligibility Relaxation – Cut-Off Date – Petitioners sought benefit of reduced qualifying marks (40th percentile) in view of Indian Nursing Council guidelines – Court held that the benefit was rightly granted to those who applied within the extended admission deadline (30.11.2024) – Petitioners did not apply or take admission before the final cut-off – Held: No relief can be granted as admission beyond notified date is impermissible [Paras 2–14, 18–21]

Judicial Review – Article 226 – Scope – Petitioners challenged denial of admission after missing the last date notified by the statutory authority – Court observed that it cannot override the statutory timelines fixed by Indian Nursing Council or re-open concluded admission process – Coordinate Bench decision dated 26.11.2024 attained finality and did not extend last date – Held: Writ court cannot grant relief contrary to finalised judicial and statutory framework [Paras 13–14, 24]

Regulatory Interpretation – Indian Nursing Council Notification – Interpretation of ‘Irregular Batch’ – Court held that INC’s Notification dated 28.10.2024 applied only to students admitted through valid counselling process before 30.11.2024 – Petitioners who neither applied nor were admitted before this date cannot claim benefit as part of ‘irregular batch’ – Held: Notification cannot be stretched to cover post-deadline admissions [Para 18]

Procedural Fairness – No Violation – Petitioners claimed lack of awareness of advertisement – Court held that advertisement was duly published online and 283 candidates availed the benefit within deadline – Petitioners failed to justify their inaction – Also did not seek impleadment in prior successful writ petitions or challenge admission deadline – Held: No procedural irregularity or denial of opportunity [Paras 16, 22–23]

Administrative Law – No Power to Extend Deadlines – High Court reaffirmed that neither the court nor the counselling authority has jurisdiction to extend the last date of admission in absence of statutory provisions or express judicial direction – Held: Authority acted in accordance with law – Relief denied [Paras 12, 24]

Decision:

Writ Petitions dismissed – Court holds that petitioners were not entitled to admission as they failed to apply or secure admission within the final cut-off date (30.11.2024) – No power to reopen admission process or extend deadlines – No merit found in claims for relaxation post-deadline.

Insurance Law – Jewellers Comprehensive Protection Policy – Theft vs. Entrustment – Customers known to insured placed prior order for gold chains – Jewellery voluntarily handed over to customers for inspection – Customers dishonestly replaced gold chains with artificial ones and left premises – Held: Initial voluntary handing over constituted “entrustment” – Subsequent dishonest replacement amounted to misappropriation by entrusted customers – Loss squarely covered by exclusion Clause 11(c) – Insurer not liable to indemnify [Paras 14–23].

Insurance Policy Interpretation – General Exclusion Clause – Clause 11(c) – Theft by Customer – Scope – Exclusion applies where insured property is entrusted to customer and loss arises therefrom – Trust-based transfer of possession for inspection sufficient to constitute entrustment – Distinction between stranger theft and customer entrustment emphasized [Paras 15–21].

Criminal Law Concepts Applied to Insurance Contracts – Sections 378 and 405 IPC – Theft and Criminal Breach of Trust – Where possession initially transferred with consent and trust, dishonest misappropriation constitutes breach of trust – Such loss excluded under insurance policy where entrustment clause applies [Paras 13, 17–19].

Consumer Protection – Deficiency of Service – Erroneous Allowance of Claim by Consumer Commission – Commission failed to appreciate applicability of exclusion clause – Held: Repudiation by insurer justified – Allowance of claim amounted to legal error [Paras 5, 21–24].

Precedent – National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ishar Das Madan Lal – Distinguished – In that case offender was a stranger and no entrustment existed – In present case customers were known and jewellery was entrusted voluntarily – Ratio not applicable [Paras 22].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and order dated 24.11.2023 passed by J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission set aside – Insurance claim held not payable – Amount deposited by insurer to be refunded.

Service Law – Selection Grade – Non-Communication of Adverse ACRs – Grant Upheld – Pharmacist denied selection grade benefit from 13.04.1977 while juniors were granted the same – Denial based on average ACRs for 1970–1973 which were never communicated to employee – Trial Court and First Appellate Court held such ACRs could not be relied upon – Held: In light of Supreme Court rulings, all ACRs, including “average” or “good”, must be communicated – Non-communication renders denial of benefit arbitrary and illegal [Paras 7–17].

Administrative Law – Washed-Off Theory – Efficiency Bar Crossed – Employee had crossed efficiency bar on 01.11.1976 – Courts below rightly held that earlier average ACRs were liable to be ignored – Such entries deemed to be “washed off” and could not be the basis for denying selection grade [Paras 11, 18].

Limitation – Mixed Question of Law and Fact – Waiver – Issue of limitation framed but not pressed by the State before Trial Court or Appellate Court – No grounds raised in Regular Second Appeal on this issue – Held: Fresh plea barred – Even on merits, limitation not made out as cause of action arose only with letter dated 21.07.1987 granting partial benefit – Suit filed on 09.03.1990 within prescribed 3-year period [Paras 20–24].

Judicial Review – Concurrent Findings – Interference Unwarranted – Concurrent judgments of Trial Court and First Appellate Court based on cogent reasoning and legal principles – No perversity shown – Appeal dismissed [Paras 6, 19, 25].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Trial Court and First Appellate Court judgments upheld – Respondent entitled to selection grade w.e.f. 13.04.1977 – Plea of limitation rejected both on procedural waiver and substantive grounds.