Civil Law - Rejection Of Plaint  - Order VII Rule 11 CPC  - Maintainability of Suit – Tenant Seeking Cancellation of Sale Deed – No Locus Standi – Plaintiff-tenant filed a suit seeking cancellation of a sale deed executed by landlord in favour of a third party, claiming peaceful possession since 2008 – Held: Tenant, not being the owner, cannot challenge the validity of the sale deed merely on the basis of possession – The plaint discloses no cause of action for cancellation of sale deed [Paras 10–14].

Rejection of Plaint – Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Allegation of Illegal Transfer Not Sustainable – Trial court allowed defendants’ application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC rejecting the plaint – Held: As per Supreme Court ruling in Himalaya Vintrade Pvt. Ltd., a caretaker or tenant cannot claim ownership or challenge title based on long possession – The suit was rightly dismissed without trial as the plaint failed to disclose a maintainable cause [Paras 12–17].

Pending Litigation – Concealment of Facts – Effect on Maintainability – It was revealed that proceedings between parties were already pending before a Commercial Court and the tenant failed to disclose the same – Held: Material suppression of pending litigation coupled with lack of ownership disentitles plaintiff from equitable relief – Suit not maintainable [Paras 5–6, 12].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – No Interference Warranted – Appellate court upheld trial court’s decision rejecting the plaint – Suit found to be barred by law and not maintainable – First Appeal dismissed, trial court judgment sustained [Paras 18–19].

Civil Law – Ex-Parte Order Passed Without Service of Summons – Recalled Subject to Cost – The petitioner-defendant challenged an ex-parte order passed in a suit where no summons was served on him under Order 5 Rule 1 CPC – Despite entering appearance via caveat and participating in injunction proceedings, the court had not recorded his appearance or fixed a date for filing written statement – Held: Mere appearance in interim application does not imply waiver of formal summons – Ex-parte order against petitioner liable to be recalled [Paras 1, 7–10, 12–15].

Appearance via Caveat – Not Equivalent to Service of Summons – Order 5 Rule 1 Mandatory – The defendant had lodged a caveat under Section 148A CPC and appeared in the injunction proceedings – Held: In absence of a recorded appearance and fixed date for written statement, service of summons remains mandatory – Time limit for filing written statement cannot begin without such recording – High Court distinguished cases where service was waived voluntarily or by conduct [Paras 8–12, 15–16].

Doctrine of Waiver – Inapplicable When Court Fails to Fix Date for Written Statement – The trial court failed to fix a date for filing written statement or to treat appearance as effective under Order 5 – Held: Waiver must be explicit or inferred from conduct along with court direction – Absence of such record precludes implication of waiver – Trial court’s refusal to recall the ex-parte order was procedurally flawed [Paras 11, 15].

Delay Tactics vs Procedural Fairness – Negligence of Defendant Acknowledged but Court’s Role Also Criticised – Though the High Court noted the petitioner’s inaction and intent to delay proceedings, it held that procedural fairness required proper service and recording of appearance – The trial court erred by not issuing or recording summons before treating the defendant as ex-parte – Balance of procedural compliance and fairness maintained [Paras 13, 16].

Decision – Revisional Application Allowed – Ex-Parte Order Set Aside – Written Statement Permitted – High Court set aside the trial court’s order refusing recall – Directed petitioner to pay ₹25,000 as cost to the plaintiff and file written statement within 15 days – Failure to comply would entitle trial court to proceed ex-parte – Urgent certified copy permitted [Paras 17–19].

Civil Law - Substitution of Legal Representative – Will Executed by Deceased Plaintiff – Order 22 Rule 3 CPC – Substitution Allowed – Original plaintiff Munni Devi filed suit for declaration and partition claiming 1/3rd share – After her death, petitioner (her son) filed substitution application based on a will executed by her in his favour – Trial Court rejected the application on the ground that other legal heirs named in the will were not impleaded – Held: A legatee under a will represents the estate of the deceased and is entitled to be substituted – No allegation of fraud or collusion was made by the respondents – Application wrongly rejected – Order of Trial Court set aside and petitioner directed to be impleaded as plaintiff [Paras 1–10].

Procedural Lapse by Trial Court – Failure to Declare Suit Abated – Judicial Criticism – Trial Court, while rejecting the substitution application, did not declare the suit abated despite no surviving plaintiff – Instead, the matter was posted for plaintiff’s evidence – Held: Such action reflects lack of basic procedural understanding – Presiding Officer requires training – Order to be forwarded to District Judge, Director of JOTRI, and Registrar General for appropriate action [Paras 12–13].

Final Decision – Misc. Petition allowed – Order dated 08/01/2025 in RCSA No. 233/2021 set aside – Petitioner to be substituted as plaintiff – Trial Court directed to proceed with the suit accordingly [Paras 10–11].

Civil Law - Succession – Scheduled Tribe – Application of Indian Succession Act – Appeal Dismissed – The appellants challenged judgments declaring the plaintiff/respondent as the successor to agricultural land formerly owned by Tulsabai (widow of Gamna), asserting absence of adoption and claiming title based on ancestral gift and possession – Held: No exemption under Section 3 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 was proved to exclude Bhil tribe – Therefore, succession rightly governed by Sections 24, 28, and 32 of the Act – Plaintiff, as nephew of deceased, was closest kindred entitled to succeed – Second appeal dismissed as no substantial question of law arose [Paras 13-21, 26-30].

Adoption – Custom Not Proved – Succession Upheld on Basis of Kindred – Plaintiff's adoption was not accepted by the courts below for lack of evidence – However, concurrent findings held him to be the nearest surviving relative of the deceased couple – Courts rightly relied on statutory succession principles rather than unproven adoption or custom – Adoption plea immaterial to final outcome [Paras 12-15, 21].

Customary Law – Inapplicability Due to Lack of Exemption – Hindu and Indian Succession Acts Apply – Appellants contended that Bhil tribe is governed by custom and not general succession laws – Court held that without notification under Section 3 of Indian Succession Act, 1925, no exemption applies – Indian Succession Act validly governs devolution of property – Appellants' reliance on Madhu Kishwar distinguished [Paras 18-19].

Mutation and Compensation – No Independent Right Created – Sale by Defendants Invalid – Mutation in favour of defendants and subsequent sale to State under Mahi Canal Project did not create valid title – Original sale deed from 1966 in favour of Gamna remained unchallenged – Courts rightly declared mutation and sale-deed null and void – Compensation declared payable to rightful heir i.e. plaintiff [Paras 5-8, 22-23].

Substantial Question of Law – Not Made Out – Concurrent Findings Not Interfered With – Appellants failed to show any perverse findings or misapplication of law – Legal issues raised regarding adoption, mutation, and compensation did not satisfy threshold under Section 100 CPC – Appeal dismissed in limine [Paras 13, 26-30].

Final Decision – Second Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law arose – Plaintiff/respondent declared rightful successor and owner – Defendants’ mutation and sale of land declared invalid – Compensation awarded to plaintiff – Costs not imposed [Paras 29-30].

Matrimonial Law – Adultery Allegations – Impleadment of Paramour – Privacy and Disclosure – Divorce Proceedings – Interlocutory Orders – Admissibility of Electronic Evidence – Right to Fair Trial – Family Court Powers

Impleadment of Paramour – Necessity in Divorce Proceedings – Order I Rule 10 CPC – Impleadment Upheld – The alleged paramour (R-2) challenged her impleadment in the divorce proceedings initiated by the wife on grounds of adultery – The Court held that impleadment of the person accused of adultery is both statutorily mandated and necessary to ensure compliance with principles of natural justice – Presence of specific averments regarding intimacy, travel, and association were found sufficient – Held: The impleadment was valid, and R-2’s application for deletion from array of parties was rightly dismissed [Paras 12-23].

Right to Privacy – Disclosure of CDRs and Tower Location – Section 151 CPC – Disclosure Directed with Safeguards – Alleged violations of privacy under Article 21 were raised against the Family Court’s direction to produce call detail records (CDRs) and tower location of the husband and R-2 – The Court held that such data is relevant circumstantial evidence in adultery cases – However, proportionality requires restriction of scope and strict confidentiality – Held: Disclosure upheld with direction to produce in sealed cover with confidentiality safeguards [Paras 24-33].

Document Discovery – Hotel Stays, Chats, and Travel Records – Order XI Rule 14 CPC – Partial Rejection Set Aside – The Family Court had rejected the wife’s prayer for production of certain documents (e.g., hotel bookings, WhatsApp/Facebook/Microsoft chats, FASTag records, travel details) terming it a “fishing enquiry” – The Court held that documents specifically mentioned and tied to pleaded facts (e.g., hotel stays) were admissible – Held: Rejection of documents at Serial Nos. (xvii) to (xxiv) set aside; production directed with safeguards [Paras 35-44].

Financial Disclosure – Bank and Investment Records – Order XI Rule 14 CPC – Partial Disclosure Upheld – The husband challenged the order directing him to disclose financial documents, contending that they were premature – The Court found that only relevant and specific documents were directed for production, and broader speculative disclosures had been rightly excluded – Held: Order allowing production of documents at Serial Nos. (i) to (viii), (x), (xii), and (xiii) sustained [Paras 45-51].

Final Decision – Appeals Disposed – Impugned Order Partly Modified – Impleadment of R-2 and disclosure of CDRs/tower location data upheld – Financial documents and hotel/travel records to be produced under confidentiality safeguards – All four appeals dismissed with modifications in discovery directions [Paras 52-54].

Bail – Modification of Conditions – Maintainability – Section 528 BNSS – Petition challenging onerous bail conditions restricting foreign travel and requiring deposit of passport – Respondents argued modification impermissible once bail granted – Held: Bail order interlocutory; conditions not final judgment; Court retains inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to alter conditions to secure ends of justice [Paras 12-16].

Right to Travel Abroad – Article 21 – Petitioner, business head engaged in international tyre trade, required frequent travel – Family and residence in India, no flight risk – Held: Right to travel abroad part of personal liberty; restrictions must be reasonable; conditions modified to balance liberty with fair trial [Paras 18-20, 23].

GST Offence – Bail Conditions – Regulation not Deletion – Court distinguished Barun Chandra Thakur and Aparna Purohit cases – Noted petitioner’s case involved GST evasion triable by Magistrate; not grave crimes like POCSO or conspiracy – Conditions for foreign travel regulated with affidavits, disclosures and additional security; not deleted [Paras 21-22, 24].

Modified Conditions – Passport & Travel – Condition requiring prior permission for each trip substituted with requirement to file affidavit before Trial Court disclosing travel details; prohibition on foreign travel after case fixed for final arguments – Passport deposit condition relaxed; passport to be returned – Additional security of Rs.5 lakhs directed [Para 24].

Decision – Application Allowed in Part – Bail conditions modified to regulate international travel and relax passport deposit requirement – Additional security imposed – Application disposed of [Paras 24-25].

Criminal Writ - Police Surveillance – History-Sheet – Single Case Registered in 2016 – History-Sheet Quashed – Petitioner had only one criminal case registered in 2016 under the Cow Slaughter Act – No further offence, complaint, or FIR registered – Despite this, history-sheet under Category 18-A was opened and representation for closure rejected – Held: No reasonable basis or suspicion to justify opening of history-sheet under Paragraphs 228 & 240 – Surveillance not warranted – Police acted without sufficient material [Paras 2-4, 6-14].

Constitutional Rights – Article 21 – Illegal Surveillance Violates Personal Liberty – Unwarranted use of history-sheet powers violates the citizen’s right to dignity and liberty – Supreme Court cautions against arbitrary surveillance in Govind v. State of M.P. and Malak Singh v. State of Punjab – Held: Power under Police Regulations is not unbridled – Must be backed by cogent reasons and prior criminal conduct – Absent in this case [Paras 9-11, 13-14].

Administrative Law – Judicial Review of Police Action – Non-Speaking and Mechanical Order – Representation for closure of history-sheet was rejected in a casual and mechanical manner without consideration of facts – Held: Order dated 23.06.2025 is arbitrary and unsustainable – Directions issued to close the history-sheet and refrain from further surveillance [Paras 11-15].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Order dated 23.06.2025 passed by Superintendent of Police, Siddharthnagar quashed – Respondents directed to close History-Sheet No. 18-A and not to keep the petitioner under surveillance [Para 15].

Criminal Law - Section 138 NI Act - Dishonour of Cheque – Presumption under Section 139 NI Act – Conviction Upheld – Accused admitted issuance and signature on the cheque – Presumption of legal liability under Sections 118 and 139 arose – Accused failed to rebut the presumption by credible defence – Held: Courts below rightly convicted the accused under Section 138 of the NI Act [Paras 6, 7, 18, 23, 25, 30].

Security Cheque Defence – Inconsistent Defence – Not Substantiated – Accused claimed cheque was taken by complainant as security – Defence found contradictory and unsupported by evidence – No account statement or documentation produced – Held: No plausible explanation given for holding blank cheques – Defence rightly rejected by courts below [Paras 5, 24-25].

Service of Notice – Presumption under General Clauses Act – Valid Service Established – Legal notice was sent to correct address – Accused failed to rebut statutory presumption of service – No payment made after receipt of court summons – Held: Notice deemed served under Section 27 of General Clauses Act – C.C. Alavi Haji principle applied [Paras 33-35].

Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – Limited Interference Permissible – No Perversity Shown – Held: Revisional court not to reappreciate evidence unless findings are perverse or result in miscarriage of justice – Findings of conviction supported by evidence – No error of law or jurisdiction found – Revision dismissed [Paras 13-17].

Sentence and Compensation – Not Excessive – Compensation Justified – Accused sentenced to 2 months’ simple imprisonment and ₹1,60,000 as compensation for dishonoured cheque of ₹90,000 – Held: Sentence not excessive given the deterrent object of the NI Act and 10-year delay in realisation – Compensation rightly awarded [Paras 37-40].

Final Decision – Revision Petition Dismissed – No merit in contention regarding limitation, lack of notice or absence of liability – Trial and appellate courts rightly convicted and sentenced the accused – No interference warranted [Paras 36, 42].

SARFAESI Act – Delay in Execution of Section 14 Order – Writ of Mandamus Issued – Bank sought implementation of order passed under Section 14 by CJM, Ludhiana – Tehsildar failed to take possession of secured assets – Held: Delay defeats purpose of SARFAESI Act which aims for expeditious recovery of NPAs – Writ allowed directing execution of order within 30 days [Paras 1-4].

Public Functionaries – Failure to Act on Statutory Duty – Condemned – Court found repeated cases of non-compliance by District and Revenue Authorities in executing orders under SARFAESI Act – Directed that such delays frustrate legislative intent and impose unnecessary financial burden on banking system – Warning issued against systemic neglect [Paras 5-7].

Judicial Training – Orientation Course Ordered – Compliance Failure – Citing continuous lapses, Court directed Chandigarh Judicial Academy to conduct orientation for all District Magistrates and Tehsildars in Punjab, Haryana and UT Chandigarh on procedures and timelines under Section 14 – Emphasis on ensuring statutory compliance within prescribed deadlines [Paras 10-14].

SARFAESI Scheme – Role of District Magistrate – Ministerial Nature of Function – Relying on SC judgment in R.D. Jain & Co. v. Capital First Ltd., Court reiterated that powers under Section 14 are ministerial, not quasi-judicial – DM must act within 30 days, extendable to 60 days, and ensure execution within further 30 days – Delay in compliance to be treated as contempt [Paras 9, 14-15].

Final Directions – Writ Allowed – Time-bound Compliance Mandated – Direction to execute CJM order within 30 days – Ordered submission of compliance report by 07.11.2025 – Warning of contempt in case of further dereliction – Petition disposed accordingly [Paras 15-17].