Civil Law - Second Appeal - Appellants-plaintiffs sought declaration of ownership and possession over specific land claiming to be successors of predecessor Har Swaroop - Trial Court and First Appellate Court dismissed suit on grounds that plaintiffs failed to prove title of predecessor or identify the suit property - Verification report by Tehsildar established that disputed Nursing Home was not situated on the land claimed by plaintiffs - Plaintiffs failed to produce demarcation report or prove the site plan - Held - No substantial question of law arises as findings are not perverse - Re-appreciation of evidence is impermissible in second appeal - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-19].

Civil Law - Burden of Proof - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 100 - Essential ingredients - Plaintiff must establish title to the suit property and identify the area of alleged encroachment before seeking relief - Mere assertion of succession does not discharge the initial burden of proof - Omission in cross-examination of witnesses does not relieve plaintiff of the onus to prove the essential ingredients of the case - Held - Findings of lower courts based on appreciation of revenue records and oral evidence are valid - [Paras 12-14].

Civil Law - Scope of Second Appeal - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 100 - Substantial question of law - Interference with concurrent findings of fact is warranted only in exceptional circumstances where findings are perverse or based on no evidence - Held - Court cannot substitute its own conclusion for concurrent findings solely because another view is possible - [Paras 9-17].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Concurrent findings of the Courts below affirmed – Pending miscellaneous applications stand disposed of.

Criminal Law - Contempt of Court - Contempt of Courts Act 1971 - Section 2(c) - Criminal Contempt by Advocate - Accused-advocate appeared in court in an inebriated state on multiple occasions and disrupted judicial proceedings by shouting at the Presiding Officer and interrupting senior counsel - Accused levelled baseless allegations of corruption against the judiciary to scandalize the court - Court held that such conduct constitutes criminal contempt as it lowers the authority of the court and obstructs the administration of justice - Held - Charges against the accused proved - [Paras 8-20].

Criminal Law - Sentencing - Contempt of Courts Act 1971 - Section 12 - Gravity of contempt - Accused failed to express genuine remorse and maintained an adamant stand throughout the proceedings - Court observed that such conduct by a member of the Bar is unacceptable and endangers the rule of law - Held - Accused sentenced to simple imprisonment for one day (till the rising of the court) and a fine of Rs 2000 - [Paras 18-20].

Evidence Law - Expert Testimony - Contempt of Courts Act 1971 - Section 15 - Certificate of Drunkenness - Medical report from Karwar Institute of Medical Sciences confirmed the presence of alcohol in the accused while he was present in the court hall causing disturbance - Testimony of the Presiding Officer corroborated the disruptive behavior - Held - Contemptuous conduct and inebriated state fully established - [Paras 4-13].

Constitutional Law - Freedom of Speech - Constitution of India - Article 19(1)(a) - Limitation on criticism of Judiciary - Apex Court precedents establish that freedom of speech does not include the right to scandalize the court or attribute motives to judges without basis - Hostile and malicious criticism does not enjoy constitutional protection - Held - Advocacy must be exercised within the limits of legal decorum - [Paras 15-17].

Decision: Accused convicted of criminal contempt under Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 - Sentenced to simple imprisonment until the rising of the court and a fine of Rs 2,000 - Directed to surrender for custody forthwith.

Civil Law - Limitation - Limitation Act 1963 - Section 5 - Condonation of delay - Defendants seeking to set aside ex parte decree after 567 days citing medical illness for three months - No explanation provided for remaining two-year silence or failure to track suit status despite awareness of litigation - Held - Trial Court correctly exercised discretion in refusing to condone delay where sufficient cause was absent - [Paras 10-13].

Civil Law - Execution of Decree - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 21 Rule 58 and Section 47 - Applicability to pendente lite purchaser - Pendente lite purchaser filed objections to execution of specific performance decree alleging settlement and lack of title - Executing Court wrongly allowed objections and dismissed execution petition - Held - Order 21 Rule 58 is inapplicable as there is no attachment - Transferee pendente lite is bound by decree and barred by Rule 102 from obstructing execution - Executing Court cannot go behind decree - [Paras 32-41].

Civil Law - Specific Performance - Transfer of Property Act 1882 - Section 52 - Doctrine of lis pendens - Purchaser bought property during pendency of specific performance suit - Transferee pendente lite has no independent right to resist execution of decree - Such transfers are subject to the outcome of the suit - Held - Executing Court erred in allowing objection application - Decree holder entitled to proceed with execution - [Paras 38-41].

Decision: CRP No. 2269 of 2023 dismissed – CRP Nos. 1146 and 1147 of 2024 allowed – Execution Petition No. 35 of 2019 restored to file with direction to dispose of the same within three months.

Civil Law - Property Title - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XXIII Rule 3-A - Challenge to compromise decree - Appellant-defendant sought to challenge a compromise decree dated 25.04.1975 to which her predecessors-in-interest were parties - Trial Court and Appellate Court upheld the validity of the compromise and the plaintiffs' ownership - High Court ruled that a compromise decree cannot be challenged in collateral proceedings and must be contested via an application under Order 23 Rule 3-A CPC before the court that passed the decree - Appellant having purchased from parties bound by the compromise cannot claim a better title than her vendors - Held - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-15].

Civil Law - Revenue Record - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Mutation entries - Evidentiary value - Appellant claimed bona fide purchaser status based on mutation entry No. 403 - Mutation entry was made based on a judgment that had already been set aside - Court held that mutation entries are for fiscal purposes only and do not confer or extinguish title - A purchaser is required to conduct due diligence regarding the underlying judicial proceedings and cannot rely solely on mutation entries - Held - Appellant not a bona fide purchaser - [Paras 16-24].

Civil Law - Judicial Directions - Revenue Authorities - Duty to maintain accurate records - Court observed that wrongful mutation entries led to 50 years of litigation - Issued mandatory directions to revenue authorities to reflect all sale deeds and court orders in revenue records and to relegate parties to Civil Courts for title disputes - Held - Revenue authorities prohibited from deciding title - [Paras 23-24].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Impugned judgments and decrees of the lower courts affirmed – Directions issued to the Secretary, Revenue and Chief Secretary of Punjab and Haryana to ensure compliance regarding revenue record entries.

Criminal Law - Bail - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 - Section 12 - Regular Bail - Petitioner who is a juvenile in conflict with law sought bail in a murder case under Section 302 IPC - Petitioner has been in custody for two years six months and twenty five days and investigation is complete with limited prosecution evidence recorded - High Court noted that Section 12 of the 2015 Act mandates release of a juvenile unless specific exceptions are met - Court found no grounds to trigger the exceptions mentioned in the statute and ordered release - Held - Petitioner granted regular bail - [Paras 1-8].

Criminal Law - Juvenile Delinquency - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 - Section 12 - Applicability - Even where a juvenile is being tried as an adult the special protection regarding bail under Section 12 remains applicable and the court must assess the risk of release against the statutory conditions - Held - Statutory conditions for denial of bail not satisfied - [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Petition allowed – Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail upon furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court, Chief Judicial Magistrate, or Duty Magistrate.

Writ Law - Delay and Laches - Constitution of India 1950 - Article 226 - Petitioner challenged departmental punishment order dated 19.08.2019 by filing writ petition in 2026 - Petitioner remained inactive for seven years from the date of the impugned order and three years after a previous writ petition concerning the same matter was dismissed as infructuous with liberty to challenge - Court held that discretionary relief under writ jurisdiction cannot be extended to a litigant who is tardy and indolent - Mere existence of a legal ground does not excuse inordinate delay and lack of diligence - Held - Petition dismissed on the ground of delay and laches with costs of Rs. 25,000 imposed upon the petitioner - [Paras 7-14].

Writ Law - Equitable Jurisdiction - Constitution of India 1950 - Article 226 - Doctrine of laches - Petitioner retired from service and sought to reopen settled departmental proceedings after a prolonged period - Court reiterated that relief under Article 226 is discretionary and must be exercised judicially and reasonably - Petitioner failed to provide any cogent explanation for the delay or to justify why the legal remedy was not pursued with diligence upon the dismissal of the earlier writ petition - Held - Petitioner is not entitled to extraordinary discretionary relief - [Paras 8-13].

Decision: Petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000 to be deposited in the High Court Lawyers Welfare Fund within two months, failing which the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur, is directed to recover the same as arrears of land revenue.

Criminal Law - Default Bail - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 187 - Accused sought default bail on the ground that the 60-day period for investigation had expired - Petitioner argued that the addition of Section 409 IPC was a late subterfuge to defeat his indefeasible right - Court held that the determination of the statutory period for investigation depends upon the offences to which the investigation relates in substance and not merely the sections initially mentioned in the FIR - Foundational allegations in the FIR prima facie disclosed ingredients of Section 409 IPC from the inception - Held - Investigating agency was entitled to the 90-day period and the application for default bail was rightly rejected - [Paras 1-28].

Criminal Law - Investigation Procedure - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 187 - Addition of Offences - Court held that the prosecution is not precluded from adding graver sections during investigation if the foundational facts were present in the initial complaint - The court must examine the substance of the allegations rather than mechanical nomenclature - If the FIR allegations ex facie attract a graver offence, the omission of such section does not confer an unintended benefit upon the accused to calculate the investigation period based on lesser offences - [Paras 23-26].

Decision: Criminal revision dismissed – Impugned order rejecting default bail affirmed – [Para 28].

Criminal Law - Default Bail - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 187(3) - Addition of graver offences during investigation - Petitioner sought default bail claiming the statutory period of 60 days had expired since the FIR initially invoked only Section 420 IPC - Trial Court rejected bail on the ground that the investigation also covered Section 409 IPC which mandates a 90-day period - High Court observed that the foundational allegations of the FIR clearly encompassed elements of breach of trust - Held - Where the allegations in the FIR prima facie disclose ingredients of a graver offence, the subsequent formal addition of such section is not a subterfuge but a reflection of the nature of investigation - Petitioner not entitled to default bail - [Paras 1-28].

Criminal Law - Investigation - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 187(3) - Determination of statutory period - Scope of Judicial Review - Court is not bound by the nomenclature of offences in the FIR - The period for filing a charge-sheet depends on the nature of the offence to which the investigation relates - Held - Courts must examine the substance of allegations and material on record to determine if an investigation is in relation to an offence attracting 60 or 90 days - [Paras 23-26].

Evidence Law - Criminal Procedure - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 187 - Right to default bail - Accrual of indefeasible right - Held - While an indefeasible right to default bail accrues if investigation is not completed within the statutory period, such right cannot be claimed by ignoring the gravity of allegations that were discernible from the inception of the FIR and subsequently formalized - [Paras 26-27].

Decision: Criminal Revision dismissed – The order of the trial court affirmed – No merit found in the contention that Section 409 IPC was added solely as a device to extend the statutory period.

Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 482 - Petitioners sought pre-arrest bail for offences under BNS - Allegation that petitioners assaulted de facto complainant with a wooden stick following a land dispute - Medical report confirmed injuries were simple in nature - Prosecution opposed bail citing need for custodial interrogation - Court held that mere apprehension of investigation agency does not warrant denial of bail when custodial interrogation is not demonstrated to be indispensable and injuries are simple - Held - Petitioners entitled to anticipatory bail subject to conditions - [Paras 1-13].

Criminal Law - Practice and Procedure - Anticipatory Bail - Scope of enquiry - Court not required to undertake meticulous appreciation of evidence at bail stage - Assessment must be prima facie based on nature of accusation- role of accused- possibility of fleeing from justice- tampering with evidence- and necessity of custodial interrogation - [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Petitioners directed to be released on personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each subject to conditions including weekly appearance before the Investigating Officer and prohibition on influencing prosecution witnesses.