Civil Law – Execution – Section 47 CPC – Cryptic Ex Parte Decree – Inexecutability – Suit filed in 1986 for declaration and recovery of possession – Ex parte decree passed on 12.09.2002 – Decree consisted of two lines without any discussion of plaint, written statement, documents produced or issues framed – Held: A cryptic judgment not satisfying the requirements of Order 20 Rules 4, 5 and 6 CPC cannot be considered a judgment in the eye of law – Decree set aside [Paras 19–20, 25–26].

Ex Parte Judgment – Requirements – Order 20 Rules 4, 5 and 6 CPC – An ex parte judgment must contain a concise statement of the case, points for determination, decision thereon and reasons for such decision – Court must discuss the plaint, written statement, documents produced and issues for determination – A judgment that fails to satisfy these requirements is a cryptic judgment contrary to law and is inexecutable [Para 20].

Decree – Executability Against Legal Heirs – Prayer Not Amended – Relief in original suit sought only against second defendant for recovery of possession – Second defendant died during pendency of suit and legal heirs were impleaded – Plaintiffs did not amend the prayer to seek relief against legal heirs – Application to amend decree filed in I.A. No. 462 of 2016 and application to amend execution petition schedule in E.A. No. 3 of 2024 both withdrawn by plaintiffs – Held: Prayer cannot be enlarged against other defendants; decree is inexecutable as against legal heirs [Paras 6–8, 24].

Section 47 CPC – Scope – Section 47 CPC contemplates adjudication of limited issues relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of a decree – Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree – However, where the decree is void ab initio, a nullity or inexecutable in law, objections under Section 47 can be entertained – Misuse of execution proceedings to obstruct justice deprecated [Paras 20–21].

Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – High Court empowered to set aside a decree contrary to law even in collateral proceedings where the decree is found to be ex facie illegal – Powers under Article 227 are in addition to and wider than powers under Section 115 CPC [Para 11, referred cases].

Decision: Civil Revision Petitions allowed – Order dated 06.10.2025 of Principal District Munsif, Sankarankovil set aside – Ex parte judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 470 of 1986 dated 12.09.2002 set aside – No costs – Connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Domestic Violence Act – Amendment of Complaint – Scope and Permissibility – Wife sought amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to incorporate details of shared household and consequential prayer under Section 19 DV Act – Trial Court allowed amendment to enable leading of evidence pursuant to earlier order granting liberty – Appellate Court set aside amendment holding dispute to be property dispute requiring civil adjudication – Held: Amendment was consequential and necessary for effective adjudication of residence claim – Does not change nature of complaint – Order of Appellate Court erroneous and liable to be quashed [Paras 20-24, 26].

Section 29 DV Act – Appeal – Maintainability – Appeal against purely procedural order such as allowing amendment of pleadings not maintainable – Reliance placed on Abhijit Bhikaseth Auti – Appellate Court lacked jurisdiction to interfere with procedural order – Impugned appellate orders set aside [Paras 25-26].

Shared Household – Residence Rights – Section 19 DV Act – Wife permitted to lead evidence regarding residence order – Amendment to specify property details essential before adducing evidence – Pleadings must precede proof – Denial of amendment would defeat substantive right under benevolent legislation [Paras 19-21, 24].

Addition of Transferee Relative as Respondent – Section 2(q) DV Act – Property transferred by husband to nephew during pendency of proceedings after liberty granted to lead evidence – Addition of nephew as respondent held consequential – Whether domestic relationship exists is matter of evidence – Amendment necessary to effectively adjudicate residence rights – Appellate Court erred in treating matter as complex property dispute [Paras 22-24].

Parallel Civil Proceedings – Effect – Section 26 DV Act permits seeking relief under Sections 18 to 22 in other legal proceedings – Availability of civil remedy does not bar proceedings under DV Act – Reliance placed on Satish Chandra Ahuja – Concurrent remedies permissible [Paras 23-24].

Power to Amend in DV Proceedings – If not read into Act, object of legislation would be defeated – Reliance placed on Kunapareddy – Amendment permissible so long as it does not alter basic nature of complaint [Para 24].

Decision: Writ Petitions allowed – Orders dated 03.12.2025 passed by Ad-hoc DJ-1 & ASJ, Jalgaon in Criminal Appeal Nos.53/2025 and 54/2025 quashed and set aside – Orders dated 12.06.2025 passed by JMFC, Pachora allowing amendment (Exh.28A) and addition of respondent (Exh.30A) restored – Trial Court directed to proceed expeditiously.

Criminal Law – Dowry Death – Section 304B IPC – Conviction based solely on dying declaration – Deceased sustained 85–90% burn injuries – Doctor admitted no written certificate issued regarding fitness of deceased to give statement – Evidence discloses administration of painkillers, sedatives, analgesics and IV fluids – Hospital case sheet and treatment records not produced – Material witnesses including parents and relatives turned hostile – Held: Prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that deceased was in a fit state of mind and that cruelty in connection with dowry demand was inflicted soon before death – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 17, 23, 24].

Evidence – Dying Declaration – Section 32(1) Evidence Act – Though medical certification is rule of prudence and not mandatory, Court must be satisfied about voluntariness and mental fitness – Absence of written certification coupled with 90% burn injuries and administration of sedatives creates serious doubt – MLC (Ex.P37) mentions history as “suicidal attempt” and does not name accused – Failure to produce best evidence vitiates reliance solely on dying declaration [Paras 17–22].

Dowry Death – Essential Ingredients – Requirement of proof of cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demand soon before death – No independent corroboration – Majority of prosecution witnesses turned hostile – Inconsistencies regarding time of admission and recording of dying declaration – Prosecution failed to collect call details of alleged phone call made by deceased – Ingredients of Section 304B IPC not established [Paras 19–22].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Best Evidence Rule – Accused presumed innocent until guilt proved beyond reasonable doubt – Prosecution bound to adduce best available evidence – Withholding hospital records and material inconsistencies create reasonable doubt – Benefit of doubt to accused [Paras 22–23].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17/18.08.2012 in SC No.27/2011 set aside – Appellant acquitted of offence under Section 304B IPC – District Legal Services Authority directed to award compensation to minor sons of deceased within three months.

Right to Information – Answer Sheets – Marks of Candidates – Photocopies – Petitioners challenged CIC orders directing supply of photocopies of answer sheets of candidates in Railway recruitment examination – CIC held answer sheets disclosable as Railways conducts examination to fill posts, a public activity – High Court holds marks obtained by candidates in a competitive examination is not private information and is disclosable under RTI Act – However, supply of photocopies of answer sheets of other candidates not compellable; perusal of one's own answer sheet is sufficient – CIC orders quashed to extent of directing supply of photocopies – Writ petition partly allowed [Paras 17–23].

"Personal Information" vs. Public Activity – Section 8(1)(j), RTI Act – Marks of Candidates in Competitive Examination

Section 8(1)(j) exempts personal information whose disclosure has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or would cause unwarranted invasion of individual privacy – Where government or public authority is organizer or participant, information relating to such activity is accessible in public interest – Marks obtained by candidates in a public examination conducted by a government authority to fill posts has an element of public activity – Disclosure of marks of a co-candidate to another candidate who participated in the same examination does not amount to invasion of privacy and is not exempt under Section 8(1)(j) – Such information is disclosable under the RTI Act [Paras 8–17].

"Third Party Information – Section 11, RTI Act – Safeguards Before Disclosure

Section 11 mandates notice to a third party before disclosure of information relating to or supplied by such party treated as confidential – Disclosure may still be allowed if public interest in disclosure outweighs possible harm to the third party – However, where information sought (marks) is not such personal information as to require consent under Section 8, notice obligation does not arise as a matter of right for a co-candidate [Para 8, 11].

"Photocopies of Answer Sheets – Right of Co-Candidate – Perusal vs. Supply

No vested right in a candidate to obtain photocopies of answer sheets of other candidates – Permitting perusal of another candidate's answer sheet on working days suffices the requirement under the Act – A candidate can always seek photocopy of his own answer sheet – If a candidate finds irregularity in checking of other candidate's answer sheet upon perusal, he may question it in appropriate legal proceedings where the court can summon the answer sheets – Authority cannot be compelled to supply photocopies of answer sheets of other candidates [Para 17].

"Sufficiency of Information – RTI Act – Obligation to Furnish

Where an application under the RTI Act seeks relevant information, and sufficient information has been furnished, the application stands satisfied – It is not always necessary to provide copies of official records or documents which the department considers unnecessary for the purpose for which information was sought – If sufficient information has been supplied and perusal of records is permitted, it suffices the mandate of the Act, 2005 [Para 18].

Decision: Writ petition partly allowed – Orders of the Central Information Commission dated 13.05.2009 and 04.06.2009 quashed to the extent they directed supply of photocopies of answer sheets of other candidates to the respondent – Disclosure of marks, already supplied by petitioners vide letter dated 28.05.2009, held to be sufficient information – No direction for further supply of photocopies of answer sheets – Costs made easy [Paras 21–24].

Motor Accident – Contributory Negligence – Burden of Proof – Insurance Company – The deceased motorcyclist was involved in a fatal collision with a truck – The Tribunal attributed 20% contributory negligence to the deceased solely on the basis of the Panchnama – Held: The burden to prove contributory negligence lies on the Insurance Company – Driver of the truck was never examined – Panchnama did not indicate which lane the accident occurred in, making it impossible to determine negligence – Finding of 20% contributory negligence set aside [Paras 11-12].

Negligence – Damage to Vehicle – Speed – Size of Vehicle – Unscientific Inference – Contention of Insurance Company that higher damage to the motorcycle indicated higher speed of motorcyclist rejected as scientifically unsustainable – Damage to a vehicle depends upon the nature of material and combined velocity of both vehicles at the time of collision, not on speed of any one vehicle alone – Similarly, apportionment of negligence on the basis of vehicular size alone is not a valid test, as negligence is a factual determination [Para 12].

Compensation – Motor Accident – Consortium – Funeral Expenses – Loss of Estate – Pranay Sethi – Tribunal's award under heads of Funeral Expenses (Rs. 25,000/-), Loss of Consortium (Rs. 1,00,000/-) and Loss of Care and Guidance (Rs. 50,000/-) interfered with – As per National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, both Funeral Expenses and Loss of Estate are to be compensated at Rs. 18,150/- each – Consortium of Rs. 48,400/- awarded to each of the six dependents (widow, 3 minor daughters and both parents), aggregating Rs. 2,90,400/- – Total enhanced compensation determined at Rs. 11,52,900/- [Para 13].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Finding of 20% contributory negligence set aside – Compensation enhanced from Rs. 8,00,960/- to Rs. 11,52,900/- – Additional amount of Rs. 3,51,940/- awarded with simple interest at 9% per annum – Insurance Company directed to deposit enhanced amount within 8 weeks – Tribunal directed to disburse forthwith without creating FDRs.

Civil Law – Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227 – Interim Order without Disposal of Injunction Applications – Trial Court directed defendants not to alienate suit property without adjudicating I.A. Nos.1/2023 and 2/2023 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC – Petitioners contended that written statement and objections were already filed and applications were pending consideration – Held: Since injunction applications were not disposed of on merits, Trial Court directed to consider and pass appropriate orders after hearing both sides without being influenced by impugned order – Petition disposed of with directions – All rival contentions kept open [Paras 3-4].

Temporary Injunction – Duty of Court to Decide Pending Applications – Applications for temporary injunction cannot remain pending while interim directions affecting rights of parties continue – Proper course is to adjudicate applications on merits after hearing parties – High Court refrained from expressing opinion on merits and fixed time frame of one month for disposal from next date of hearing – Notice to respondents dispensed with in view of limited directions issued [Paras 2-4].

Decision: Petition disposed of – Trial Court directed to consider and decide I.A. Nos.1/2023 and 2/2023 on merits within one month from next date of hearing – Impugned order not to influence decision – All contentions kept open.

Suo Motu PIL – Child Deaths – Electrocution – Anganwadi Centre – Illegal Live Wire Fencing – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Section 105 – High Court took suo motu cognisance upon newspaper reports of deaths of two minor children due to electrocution — one a 2½-year-old inside an Anganwadi Centre in Kondagaon due to a live damaged wire, and another a 6-year-old in Pendra-Marwahi district who touched illegally fenced live wires in an agricultural field — Court monitored State accountability and preventive measures — Held: State having taken departmental and penal action, disbursed compensation and issued statewide safety directions, no further judicial direction warranted — PIL disposed of [Paras 9, 10, 11].

"Unsafe Electrical Infrastructure in Anganwadi Centres — State Accountability and Systemic Preventive Action Required"

Public Interest Litigation – Child Safety – Anganwadi Centres – Electrical Safety – In the first incident, a 2½-year-old child died inside an Anganwadi Centre, Village Padeli, District Kondagaon, after coming into contact with a live wire — enquiry revealed that a damaged power supply line caused electrification of the channel gate — Anganwadi Worker and Assistant were dismissed and the Sector Supervisor placed under suspension for failure of supervision — Court noted that repeated complaints about exposed wires and unsafe fittings had gone unaddressed — State filed affidavit through Chief Secretary confirming action taken, issuance of statewide safety directions for inspection of electrical installations in all Anganwadi Centres, and disbursement of ex-gratia of Rs.1,00,000/- to the bereaved family [Paras 3, 7].

"Illegal Live-Wire Fencing of Agricultural Fields — Grave Public Danger and Criminal Liability"

Electrocution – Agricultural Fields – Illegal Electric Fencing – Section 105 BNS – In the second incident, a 6-year-old child died in Village Kargikala, District Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi, after coming in contact with a live wire connected directly to field fencing by a landowner to protect crops from cattle — instead of a shock-based fence, a direct live current supply was connected, constituting dangerous negligence — FIR registered under Section 105 of the BNS — Power Distribution Company issued directions against illegal connections — Ex-gratia of Rs.4,00,000/- sanctioned to the mother of the deceased [Paras 4, 8].

"Electrocution Incidents — Pattern of Negligence — State Directed to Formulate Comprehensive Preventive Roadmap"

Judicial Concern – Systemic Negligence – Preventive Measures – Court observed with serious concern that electrocution incidents caused by unauthorised live connections to field fencing and by immersion of live wires in water bodies for illegal fishing are being reported with alarming frequency, resulting in loss of human lives, cattle, and wildlife — absence of warning signs and seasonal flooding adding to the danger — Court held that isolated action would not suffice and directed the State to formulate a comprehensive roadmap for prevention of electrocution deaths in government premises and agricultural fields — Court consigned the matter to records upon being informed that no fresh incident of a similar nature had come to its notice and that compensation had been disbursed [Paras 6, 9, 10, 11].

Decision: PIL disposed of — Matter consigned to records — No further directions found necessary in view of action taken by the State [Para 11].

Bail – POCSO Offences – Right of Victim to be Heard – Bail granted to accused in case involving penetrative sexual assault on minor without issuing notice to victim – Section 40 POCSO Act read with Rule 4(13) to (15) of POCSO Rules, 2020 and Section 483(2) BNSS mandate intimation and participatory rights of victim – Held: Victim is entitled to notice and opportunity of hearing at the stage of bail – Bail order set aside for non-compliance – Accused directed to surrender – Sessions Court to reconsider bail after hearing victim [Paras 6-14].

Victimology – Participatory Rights – Scope and Evolution – Supreme Court in Jagjeet Singh v Ashish Mishra recognised substantive and enforceable right of victim to be heard at every crucial stage including bail – Presence of State does not substitute hearing of victim – Denial of opportunity amounts to violation of statutory and human rights of victim – Courts obligated to ensure effective participation of victim in heinous offences [Paras 11-12].

POCSO Act – Statutory Scheme – Duty to Inform and Facilitate Representation – Section 40 confers right on child’s family/guardian to engage counsel of choice – Rule 4 imposes obligation on SJPU/local police to keep victim informed of arrest, applications and bail status – Bombay High Court in Arjun Kishanrao Maige held that notice to victim in bail proceedings under POCSO is mandatory – Non-compliance vitiates bail proceedings [Paras 9-10, 13].

Cancellation of Bail – Grounds – Bail can be cancelled where granted without affording hearing to victim and in disregard of statutory mandate – Court need not examine merits of bail when order suffers from procedural illegality affecting victim’s rights – Fresh consideration directed [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Case allowed – Bail order passed by Sessions Judge set aside – Bail bonds cancelled – Accused directed to surrender within seven days – Sessions Court directed to reconsider bail application afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to victim within one month.

Criminal Law – Section 183 BNSS – Re-recording of Statement – Victim sought mandamus for re-recording of her statement alleging it was not correctly recorded and not read over – Held: Section 183 BNSS (pari materia to Section 164 CrPC) contemplates recording of statement ordinarily only once with strict procedural safeguards – No statutory mandate for multiple recordings – Re-recording permissible only in exceptional circumstances where integrity of original statement is seriously compromised – No such exceptional circumstance made out – Petition dismissed [Paras 12, 16, 19–20].

Magisterial Statement – Safeguards and Voluntariness – Court elaborated scope and object of Section 183 BNSS – Magistrate must ensure voluntariness, explain consequences, read over statement and obtain signature – Provision acts as judicial filter between police investigation and trial – Higher evidentiary value than police statement under Section 180 BNSS – Safeguards protect against coercion and uphold Articles 20(3) and 21 of Constitution [Paras 9–11, 15].

High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction – Articles 226/227 – Power to Direct Fresh Statement – High Court may in extraordinary jurisdiction direct re-recording where grave procedural lapse, coercion, or serious infirmity is prima facie established – Power not routine or investigative in nature – Cannot compel Magistrate to record second statement as general rule – To be exercised sparingly to prevent miscarriage of justice [Paras 13–16].

Factual Finding – Compliance with Procedure – Certified copy of statement revealed that it was recorded on basis of oral narration, read over to victim, signed by her, and noted to be voluntary – No prima facie procedural violation – Trial Court’s observation that second statement can be directed only in exceptional circumstances upheld [Para 19].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No extraordinary circumstances warranting re-recording of statement under Section 183 BNSS [Para 20].