Civil Law – Production of Documents – Cross-Examination – Amended CPC – Defendant sought to produce payment receipts during cross-examination of plaintiff to confront him with payments made towards consideration amount of sale deeds – Trial court rejected application – Held: Documents not foreign to or divorced from pleadings can be produced during cross-examination; trial court's order set aside and defendant permitted to produce documents [Paras 28–32].

Documents – Production During Cross-Examination – Exceptions Under CPC – Orders VII Rule 14(4), VIII Rule 1A(4) and XIII Rule 1(3) CPC create specific exceptions permitting production of documents for cross-examination of witnesses of the other party or to refresh memory of a witness, even without prior production with pleadings and without leave of court – Such production is governed by Section 145 of the Evidence Act and corresponding Section 148 of BSA [Paras 18–21, 25–26].

Section 145 Evidence Act – Cross-Examination by Previous Statements in Writing – A party may cross-examine a witness by contradicting him with his previous statement in writing, provided it is relevant to matters in question – No leave of court required for production of documents for purposes of cross-examination or refreshing memory – Court must allow production on touchstone of Section 145 of Evidence Act [Paras 22, 26].

Party as Witness – No Distinction – Supreme Court in Mohammed Abdul Wahid v. Nilofer overruled Division Bench of Bombay High Court and held that witnesses and parties to a suit are on the same footing for purposes of adducing evidence – A party-witness cannot be treated differently from a witness simpliciter for purposes of producing documents during cross-examination [Paras 11–14].

Documents Not Foreign to Pleadings – Permissible in Cross-Examination – So long as a document produced during cross-examination is not completely divorced from or foreign to the pleadings, it cannot be disallowed – Written statement contained pleading regarding payment of consideration; receipts sought to be produced relate directly to such pleading – Production permissible [Paras 15–16, 29–30].

Laxmikant Sinal Lotlekar – Not Binding Precedent on Amended CPC – Decision in Laxmikant Sinal Lotlekar dealt with unamended provisions of CPC including deleted Rule 18 of Order VII, substituted Rule 1 of Order VIII and deleted Rule 2 of Order XIII – Proposition therein that only documents outside the case of the parties can be confronted in cross-examination cannot be read as binding precedent under amended CPC in light of Supreme Court's ruling in Mohammed Wahid [Paras 17, 27].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned order dated 08.12.2021 of 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Khed, Rajgurunagar, quashed and set aside – Trial Court directed to permit defendant no. 1 to produce documents as per list at Exhibit 118 to confront plaintiff no. 1 during cross-examination.

Banking Law - SARFAESI Act – Taking possession of secured assets – Jurisdiction of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate – Challenge to order passed under Section 14 SARFAESI Act on ground that only Chief Judicial Magistrate or District Magistrate is competent – Applicants contended that Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate lacked jurisdiction as High Court notification did not expressly confer powers of Chief Judicial Magistrate – Held: Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate exercises the same judicial powers as Chief Judicial Magistrate and is competent to deal with application under Section 14 SARFAESI Act – Notification appointing JMFC as Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate implicitly confers powers under Section 10(2) BNSS / Section 12(2) CrPC – Contention regarding lack of jurisdiction rejected [Paras 18–28, 42].

Criminal Procedure – Powers of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate – Scope of Section 10 BNSS and Section 12 CrPC – Court clarified that Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate is subordinate to Chief Judicial Magistrate only for administrative purposes and not in exercise of judicial powers – For judicial functions, ACJM stands at par with Chief Judicial Magistrate and can exercise powers under criminal law and other statutes unless expressly restricted [Paras 22–24].

SARFAESI Act – Alternative remedy – Maintainability of petition under Section 482 CrPC – Borrower challenged action taken by bank for possession of secured assets after loan account classified as NPA – Held: SARFAESI Act provides complete statutory mechanism including remedy before Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 – High Court should not exercise inherent jurisdiction when efficacious statutory remedy is available – Petition held not maintainable [Paras 38–41, 43].

Banking Law – Recovery of secured debts – Legislative scheme of SARFAESI Act – Court reiterated that Act empowers banks and financial institutions to enforce security interests and recover dues without intervention of court while simultaneously providing safeguards through remedy before DRT – Borrower aggrieved by measures under Section 13(4) or Section 14 must approach DRT for relief [Paras 29–36].

Inherent Powers – Exercise under Section 482 CrPC – High Court emphasized that inherent powers cannot be invoked when dispute relates to recovery proceedings under a special statute providing its own adjudicatory mechanism – Interference in SARFAESI proceedings at this stage would be improper [Paras 38–44].

Decision: Application dismissed – Orders passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 14 SARFAESI Act and order of Additional Sessions Judge upheld – Applicants directed to avail remedy before Debt Recovery Tribunal – Prayer for stay rejected.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – “Account Blocked / Debit Freeze” – Maintainability of prosecution under Section 138 – Petitioners issued cheque for ₹41 lakhs to complainant relating to breach of No-Pre-EMI scheme in housing project – Cheque presented after police ordered debit freezing of company’s bank account in connection with criminal investigation – Bank returned cheque with endorsement “Account blocked situation covered in 2125” – Held: Dishonour occurred due to statutory freezing of account and not due to insufficiency of funds – Where drawer has no control or authority over account at time of presentation, essential ingredients of Section 138 are not satisfied – Proceedings liable to be quashed [Paras 6-12].

Section 138 NI Act – Requirement that cheque must be drawn on “account maintained by the drawer” – Meaning of expression – For offence to arise, drawer must have operational control over bank account at time cheque becomes payable – If account is frozen or attached by statutory authority or court order, the drawer cannot operate or maintain the account – In such circumstances dishonour cannot be attributed to voluntary act of drawer – Prosecution under Section 138 not sustainable [Paras 8-11].

Cheque Dishonour – Reason “Account Blocked” – Distinction from “Insufficient Funds” – RBI clearing regulations classify return codes where payment stopped due to attachment or legal restriction – Such return does not indicate failure of drawer to maintain funds – Where dishonour arises from attachment or freezing of account beyond drawer’s control, criminal liability under Section 138 cannot be invoked [Para 11].

Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Exercise of inherent jurisdiction – Court found that cheque was issued when account was operative and freeze order was passed later during police investigation – Petitioners were unaware of freezing at time of replying to statutory notice – Continuing prosecution despite absence of statutory ingredients would result in miscarriage of justice – Hence proceedings in cheque case quashed [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Proceedings in C.C. No.1446 of 2025 pending before XIII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act quashed.

Family Law – Maintenance – Enhancement – Section 127 CrPC – Revision – Partial Modification – Original maintenance of Rs. 6,500/- per month granted vide order dated 05.07.2019 under Section 125 CrPC — respondents filed enhancement application under Section 127 CrPC — Family Court enhanced total maintenance to Rs. 14,000/- per month (wife: Rs. 4,500/-; child: Rs. 7,000/-) — husband's income increased from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 25,900/- per month — wife, though M. Com. educated, stated on affidavit to be jobless — husband alleged wife earned Rs. 6,000/- per month but failed to prove the same — Family Court doubled maintenance merely on grounds of inflation, passage of five years and wife's unemployment without recording cogent reasons — Held: Enhancement to more than double without justification is unsustainable — revisional court intervenes to strike a balance — maintenance reduced to Rs. 5,500/- per month for wife and Rs. 6,500/- per month for child, totalling Rs. 12,000/- per month — payable from date of application [Paras 1, 6.2–6.4, 7].

"Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – Maintenance Matters – Limited Interference"

Revision – Scope – Maintenance – Revisional jurisdiction is very limited and cannot be exercised in routine manner — it can be invoked only where decisions are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with provisions of law, finding is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely — in the present case, Family Court doubled maintenance without recording palpable reasons or any justification for such a conclusion — Held: Such arbitrary enhancement attracts revisional interference [Para 6.1, 6.3].

"Quantum of Maintenance – Education and Earning Capacity of Wife – Balancing Test"

Maintenance – Quantum – Education and Capacity of Wife – Maintenance should allow wife to maintain reasonable standard of living but should not be excessive or encourage idleness — wife is M. Com. educated and her prospect to earn is a relevant factor — the amount awarded must be befitting the status of the parties and capacity of spouse to pay — husband's income Rs. 25,900/- per month — husband also required to maintain ailing mother aged 76 years — child aged 13–14 years with changing needs — maintenance always dependent on factual situation — no material on record to show husband is living extravagantly — Held: Maintenance to be modulated balancing needs of wife and child against income and liabilities of husband [Paras 6.3–6.4].

Decision: Revision application allowed in part — impugned order dated 25.09.2024 modified — maintenance to wife (Respondent No. 2) reduced to Rs. 5,500/- per month and to child (Respondent No. 3) to Rs. 6,500/- per month — total maintenance of Rs. 12,000/- per month — payable from date of application — Stay Application No. 1 of 2025 disposed of as infructuous.

Specific Performance – Readiness and Willingness – Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act – Suit dismissed despite proof of agreement and payment – Plaintiff proved execution of agreement to sell, payment of entire sale consideration and delivery of possession – However plaintiff failed to establish continuous readiness and willingness to perform remaining obligations such as execution and registration of sale deed and related expenses – Mere issuance of notices and payment of stamp duty insufficient – Trial Court rightly exercised discretion in refusing specific performance – Appeal dismissed [Paras 20-23, 34-35].

Specific Performance – Equitable and Discretionary Relief – Courts not bound to grant decree merely because agreement proved – Relief depends on conduct of plaintiff and proof of readiness and willingness from date of agreement till decree – Absence of evidence showing practical preparedness to complete registration justified refusal of decree [Paras 21-24, 34].

Agreement to Sell with Possession – Whether creates title – Agreement reciting payment of entire consideration and delivery of possession amounts to instrument in nature of conveyance requiring stamp duty and compulsory registration – Unregistered document cannot transfer title to immovable property – Ownership can be transferred only through registered deed of conveyance [Paras 27-32].

Registration of Documents – Effect of Unregistered Instrument – Section 17 & 49 Registration Act – Unregistered agreement affecting immovable property cannot confer title nor be received as evidence of transfer except for collateral purposes – Declaration of title cannot be granted on basis of such unregistered agreement [Paras 29-32].

Evidence – Adverse Inference – Defendant failing to enter witness box – Defendant disputed delivery of possession but did not depose in evidence – Adverse inference drawn under settled principle that party withholding himself from witness box weakens his defence [Paras 18, 33].

Cross-Objection – Order 41 Rule 22 CPC – Challenge to finding without appeal – Respondent challenged finding regarding delivery of possession – However absence of rebuttal evidence and adverse inference justified sustaining trial court finding – Cross-objection dismissed [Paras 11, 33].

Specific Performance – Distinction between “Readiness” and “Willingness” – Readiness relates to financial capacity while willingness relates to conduct of plaintiff – Both must be pleaded and proved continuously from date of agreement till decree – Mere assertion without supporting evidence insufficient [Paras 24-26].

Decision: First appeal dismissed – Trial court judgment refusing decree of specific performance upheld – Cross-objection filed by defendant dismissed – Parties directed to bear their own costs.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Private Complaint – Section 406, 420, 465, 468 of the IPC - Suppression of Material Facts – Multiple complaints filed with varying allegations – First complaint disclosed only a monetary transaction involving transfer of Rs.36,05,066/- and repayment of Rs.8,85,000/- – Subsequent complaints suppressed the earlier complaint and introduced improved allegations claiming cheating of Rs.96,00,000/- involving additional victims – Held: Suppression of the earlier complaint and improvement of allegations to give criminal colour constitutes abuse of process of law – Criminal proceedings liable to be quashed [Paras 13–17, 23].

Cheating – Ingredients of offence – Requirement of dishonest intention at inception – Allegations reveal investment made with expectation of profits and later non-payment – No material to indicate fraudulent or dishonest intention of the accused at the inception of the transaction – Mere breach of promise or failure to repay investment does not constitute cheating – Dispute essentially civil in nature [Paras 18–20, 23].

Civil Dispute – Criminal Colour – First complaint indicated claim only for recovery of balance amount allegedly due – Later complaints inflated the claim amount and added additional victims while suppressing earlier complaint – Held: Criminal law cannot be invoked to settle monetary disputes arising out of investment transactions when basic ingredients of criminal offences are absent [Paras 15–17, 23].

Inherent Powers of High Court – Prevention of abuse of process – Where allegations taken at face value do not constitute offences and proceedings appear to be maliciously instituted to harass the accused – High Court justified in exercising inherent powers to quash the proceedings [Paras 21–24].

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Case allowed – Private complaint, final report and all further proceedings in C.C. No.78 of 2023 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kollam quashed as against the petitioner – Registry directed to return the fixed deposit submitted by the petitioner after lifting the lien.

Partition – Registered Partition Deed vs Oral Partition – Plaintiff claimed title and possession over suit property based on registered partition deed dated 11.01.1990 – Defendants pleaded earlier oral partition in 1980 and contended that registered partition was executed only for obtaining bank loan – Held: Registered partition deed proved through attesting witness and documentary evidence – Courts below rightly preferred registered document over plea of oral partition [Paras 7–8].

Evidence – Proof of Partition Deed – Plaintiff examined himself and attesting witness to establish execution of registered partition deed – Independent witnesses corroborated that suit property was allotted to plaintiff’s share – Held: Due execution and allotment under registered partition proved [Para 7].

Revenue Records – Patta vs Title Document – Defendants relied on patta transfer order in favour of first defendant – Held: Revenue records do not confer title and cannot override registered title document – In case of conflict between title deed and revenue record, title document prevails [Para 10].

Challenge to Registered Document – Failure to Seek Cancellation – Defendants claimed that registered partition deed was nominal but did not take any steps to cancel or set aside the document – Held: Without challenging the registered partition deed, defendants cannot rely on alleged earlier oral partition to dispute plaintiff’s title [Para 9].

Second Appeal – Absence of Substantial Question of Law – Both Trial Court and First Appellate Court concurrently held that plaintiff established title and entitlement to possession – Held: No substantial question of law arises for consideration under Section 100 CPC – Second appeal not maintainable [Para 11].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of First Appellate Court dated 14.10.2025 in A.S. No.49 of 2024 affirmed – No order as to costs – Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Motor Accident Compensation – Proof of Negligence – Delay in FIR – Insurance Company challenged involvement of insured vehicle citing 12-day delay in FIR and discrepancies between MLC and eyewitness testimony – High Court held that delay in FIR alone cannot be treated as fatal where police investigation culminated in filing of charge-sheet and evidence on record supports occurrence of accident – Mere discrepancy in history recorded in MLC, especially when injured was unconscious, cannot discredit claimant’s case – Tribunal’s finding on negligence upheld [Paras 24-32].

Motor Accident Claims – Standard of Proof – Balance of Probabilities – Court reiterated that proceedings before MACT are not governed by strict rules of evidence and negligence is to be established on the basis of preponderance of probabilities rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt – Filing of charge-sheet in criminal proceedings may itself support a finding of negligence in MACT proceedings [Paras 23, 27-28].

Evidence – Eyewitness Testimony – Minor Inconsistencies – Eye-witness admitted inability to read English alphabets forming part of vehicle registration number but consistently narrated circumstances of accident and could identify numerical digits – Such discrepancy insufficient to discard entire testimony particularly when supported by police investigation and surrounding circumstances [Paras 25-26].

Motor Accident Compensation – Assessment of Income – Income Tax Returns – Tribunal relied upon latest ITR filed after accident to determine income – High Court held that where latest return reflects abnormal variation, income should be assessed on average of preceding returns – Annual income recalculated on average basis leading to modification of compensation under loss of income and loss of future earnings [Paras 47-52].

Compensation – Attendant Charges – Multiplier Method – Where claimant suffers profound disability and requires continuous assistance for daily activities, attendant charges may be calculated using minimum wages and multiplier method – Award upheld as consistent with principles laid down by Supreme Court [Paras 43-45].

Compensation – Non-Pecuniary Damages – Pain, Suffering and Loss of Amenities – Considering severe traumatic brain injury, prolonged hospitalization and permanent disability affecting physical, cognitive and behavioural functioning, High Court upheld substantial compensation for pain and suffering and enhanced amount awarded for loss of amenities of life [Paras 54-55].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Enhancement of Compensation – Even in absence of cross-appeal or cross-objection by claimant, High Court may enhance compensation if evidence justifies higher award to ensure just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act [Para 60].

Interest on Compensation – Period During Dismissal for Default – Claim petition had remained dismissed for default for a period before restoration – Court held that interest from date of filing of claim petition need not be curtailed where claimant’s medical condition reasonably explains delay in prosecution of proceedings [Paras 56-58].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Tribunal’s award modified – Total compensation enhanced from ₹1,25,35,440/- to ₹1,25,84,913/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from date of filing of claim petition – Insurance Company directed to deposit enhanced amount with Tribunal for disbursement as per existing disbursement scheme.

Limitation Law - Delay Condonation – Inordinate Delay of 2833 Days – Petitioners sought condonation of delay in filing application to set aside ex parte decree passed in 2015 – Explanation offered that petitioners relied on their counsel to conduct the case – Held: Vague and insufficient explanation – Petitioners were aware of execution proceedings as early as 2016 but remained inactive – Inordinate delay coupled with negligence and lack of bona fides cannot be condoned [Paras 11–12, 17].

Limitation – Public Policy – Law of Limitation intended to ensure finality in litigation – Courts cannot adopt liberal approach to defeat statutory limitation provisions – Substantial justice cannot override mandatory limitation when sufficient cause is not shown [Paras 14, 16].

Ex Parte Decree – Subsequent Transactions and Third-Party Rights – After ex parte decree, plaintiff deposited balance consideration, obtained sale deed through court process, took possession and subsequently sold property to third party – Held: Petitioners’ prolonged inaction allowed third-party rights to intervene and decree holder acquired substantive rights which cannot be lightly disturbed [Paras 11, 13, 15].

Counsel’s Negligence – Not a Sufficient Cause – Mere allegation that previous counsel failed to inform petitioners about the case progress does not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of enormous delay when parties themselves failed to exercise due diligence [Para 12].

Consequential Relief – Rejection of Delay Petition – Once petition for condonation of delay is dismissed, petition seeking to set aside ex parte decree cannot survive and is liable to be dismissed [Para 21].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition No.107 of 2026 dismissed – Petition seeking condonation of delay of 2833 days rejected – Consequently, CRP No.6471 of 2025 seeking to set aside ex parte decree also dismissed – No costs.