Anticipatory Bail – Denial – Sexual Offences against Minor – Petition for anticipatory bail in a case involving a 16-year-old victim who alleged multiple instances of sexual assault, forced intoxication, blackmail, and threats by the petitioner and co-accused – Victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC corroborated the allegations – Held, anticipatory bail denied due to gravity of the offence and material on record indicating petitioner’s involvement [Paras 1-9].

Criminal Procedure – Evidence of Threats and Coercion – Mental Trauma – Allegations supported by victim’s detailed statement – Petitioner and co-accused allegedly threatened the victim into silence for three years, leading to her mental instability – Grant of interim bail to co-accused not relevant for petitioner’s case – Petitioner considered a sexual predator based on evidence [Paras 6-7].

Decision: Petition for anticipatory bail dismissed – Victim’s statement and severity of allegations justified denial – Court emphasized need to consider the victim's mental trauma and age at the time of the incident [Para 8].

Temporary Injunction – Joint Ownership – Construction by Co-owner – Petitioners, co-owners in possession, sought to expand existing construction on joint property – Trial and appellate courts issued temporary injunction restraining further construction and alienation – Held, allowing further construction could oust other co-owners and complicate partition proceedings – Temporary injunction justified to prevent potential prejudice to interests of other co-owners [Paras 1-30].

Co-ownership – Ouster and Prejudice – Legal Remedies – Legal principles under Order XXXIX, Rules 1, 2 CPC and precedents such as Full Bench judgment in Bachan Singh v. Swaran Singh applied – Co-owners not in possession may seek injunction to prevent acts detrimental to their interest – In pending partition suit, further construction by one co-owner could disrupt equitable partition [Paras 15-30].

Decision: Civil revision petition dismissed – Temporary injunction against further construction and alienation upheld – Pending partition suit to decide final rights and interests of co-owners [Para 30].

Contract Law – Validity of Agreement – Thumb Impressions and Consideration – Appellant sought specific performance of an agreement to sell, claiming part consideration was paid and the agreement was executed with respondent no.1, who later sold the land to respondents no.2 and 3 – Trial court upheld the agreement's validity based on attesting witness and appellant's testimony, corroborated by thumb impressions – Held, as per Sections 2, 4, 8, 10 of Indian Contract Act, acceptance of part consideration constitutes a valid contract – First appellate court’s reversal on grounds of appellant's lack of readiness and willingness overturned – Original agreement to sell upheld as valid [Paras 1-52].

Readiness and Willingness – Specific Performance – Timely Action – Appellant argued consistent readiness and willingness to perform her part of the contract – Trial court found in favor, appellate court reversed citing delayed action – Held, suit filed within reasonable time after awareness of the subsequent sale – Appellant demonstrated readiness and willingness as required under contract law – Suit for specific performance decreed [Paras 53-56].

Bonafide Purchasers – Knowledge of Prior Agreement – Respondents no.2 and 3 contested on grounds of being bona fide purchasers without notice – Trial court found them aware of the prior agreement – Held, respondents did not step into the witness box to refute claims, adverse inference drawn – Respondents not bona fide purchasers under Specific Relief Act [Paras 57-60].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Original judgment of the trial court decreeing specific performance restored – Agreement to sell declared valid and enforceable – Subsequent sale deed in favor of respondents no.2 and 3 declared null and void [Para 61].

Injunction – Grant of Temporary Injunction – Section 41(h) Specific Relief Act – Equally efficacious remedy – Defendant’s petition against Appellate Court's order allowing plaintiff's appeal and ordering status quo on construction over suit property – Held, Section 41(h) bars grant of perpetual injunctions when equally efficacious remedy is available – Provision not applicable to temporary injunctions – Appellate Court justified in granting temporary injunction due to prima facie fraud in partition order [Paras 1-15].

Temporary Injunction – Prima Facie Case – Fraudulent Partition Order – Plaintiff alleged fraudulent partition and possession orders – Appellate Court found prima facie evidence of fraud, justifying status quo order – Plaintiff, as co-sharer in exclusive possession, protected from dispossession without legal partition – Appellate Court’s decision to grant temporary injunction upheld [Paras 9-15].

Procedural Aspects – Revision Petition under Article 227 – Revision petition challenging order of temporary injunction on grounds of equally efficacious remedy and non-maintainability – High Court dismissed revision petition, upholding Appellate Court’s order for status quo based on prima facie case and balance of convenience [Paras 8-15].

Decision: Revision Petition Dismissed – Appellate Court's order for status quo regarding construction over suit property upheld – High Court found no merit in petitioner’s arguments against the temporary injunction [Para 16].

Juvenile Justice – Bail – Gravity of Offence – Petitioner, a juvenile, was denied bail by the Magistrate and Additional District Judge despite one year in custody – Revision petition argued that under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, bail is the rule for juveniles except in specific contingencies – Court held that the gravity of the offence should not be considered while deciding bail applications for juveniles – Bail is mandatory unless it is likely to bring the juvenile into association with known criminals, expose them to danger, or defeat the ends of justice – Orders denying bail set aside [Paras 1-12].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Held – Petitioner to be released on bail with conditions ensuring he does not associate with known criminals or engage in further offences – Parents to monitor his movements – Observations not to affect case merits [Paras 12-14].

Change of Land Use (CLU) – Jurisdiction – Municipal Corporation's authority to grant CLU in licensed colonies transferred to it – Court held Municipal Corporation/Director General Urban Local Bodies Haryana have the power to grant CLU for sites in licensed colonies developed under the 1975 Act/approved under the 1963 Act and transferred to Municipal Corporation – Power affirmed by constitutional provisions for urban planning and regulation of land-use within municipal areas [Paras 1-18].

Regulation of Land Use – Competence of Authorities – Role of Director General Urban Local Bodies Haryana in administering controlled areas included within municipal limits – Policy instructions for conversion of land use within municipal limits validated – Municipal Corporation's decisions upheld [Paras 19-20].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Held – No arbitrariness in denial of CLU – Petitioner's application for change of land use not sustainable based on the statutory framework and facts – Orders for removal of illegal construction affirmed [Paras 21-23].

Landlord-Tenant Law – Service of Summons – Compliance with Statutory Provisions – NRI landlord filed eviction petition under Section 24(3) of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 – Tenants claimed improper service and non-receipt of eviction petition copy – Held, Rent Controller and Appellate Authority correctly found that petitioners were duly served – Process Server's report confirmed delivery of summons and petition copies – Presumption of regularity under Illustration (e) of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 applied – Petitioners’ applications were tactics to delay eviction [Paras 1-16].

Judicial Acts – Presumption of Regularity – Evidence Act – Presumption that judicial and official acts are performed regularly – No exceptional circumstances shown by petitioners to rebut this presumption – Statutory requirements for service under Sections 38(4) and 38(5) of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 met – Petitioners' argument on missing words "a copy annexed" in summons format rejected [Para 11].

Decision: Petition dismissed with costs – Orders of Rent Controller and Appellate Authority upheld – Petitioners' applications found to be misuse of process to delay eviction – Costs of Rs. 25,000 imposed on petitioners [Para 16].

Motor Accident Claims – Quantum of Compensation – Future Prospects – Deceased aged 59, near retirement – Tribunal awarded compensation based on current income, including future prospects – Appeal contended income should reduce post-retirement – Court upheld Tribunal's approach, citing consistent income assessment and future prospects as per legal precedents [Paras 1-11].

Legal Representatives – Claim Eligibility – Major Son – Appeal questioned maintainability of claim by major earning son – Court affirmed right of legal representatives, including major earning sons, to claim compensation under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act – Dependence on deceased not a restrictive criterion [Paras 10-11].

Judicial Precedents – Consistency in Compensation Awards – Referenced K.R. Madhusudan, Pranay Sethi, and Birender cases – Highlighted non-applicability of split multiplier and inclusion of future prospects in compensation calculation – Court emphasized consistency with Supreme Court rulings [Paras 6-11].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – Tribunal’s compensation determination affirmed – Deceased’s income at time of accident and future prospects correctly considered – Major son’s claim upheld as per legal representative rights – Appeal dismissed with no errors in Tribunal’s judgment [Paras 9-12].

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 6 Rule 17 - Amendment of Pleadings - Subsequent Event - Held, transfer of drug license to landlord’s son is a subsequent event. No admission by landlord that would be recalled by amendment. Amendment allowed to reflect the change and avoid filing another suit. [Paras 1-11]

Rent Petition for Eviction - Amendment of Pleadings - Analysis - Held: The Rent Controller's finding that the landlord admitted facts in cross-examination was incorrect. Subsequent events, like the transfer of the drug license, justify the amendment. As per Supreme Court's precedent, such amendments are permissible when they reflect subsequent developments affecting the case's merits. [Paras 4-8]

Decision - Revision Petition Allowed - Court allowed the amendment of pleadings, setting aside the Rent Controller’s order. Petitioner's application for amendment of pleadings to be taken on record and the eviction petition to proceed in accordance with law. [Paras 11-12]