Writ Law - Mandamus - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Listing of Cases - Petitioner a practising advocate sought a writ of mandamus to direct the Registry of the High Court at the Principal Seat and Madurai Bench to immediately list twenty-one pending matters - Claimed administrative delays caused significant mental distress - High Court held that administrative authority to control the flow of litigation is an essential facet of judicial independence - Listing of cases is not a mechanical exercise but involves processing thousands of filings while maintaining equity among litigants through chronological or category-wise queues - Counsel or litigants have no vested or fundamental right to demand priority listing ahead of prior litigations except through established protocols - Held - Issuing a judicial fiat to allow leapfrogging over similarly situated litigants would violate the principle of equal access to justice - Mandamus is a discretionary remedy reserved for enforcing clear statutory rights which was not applicable here - Writ petition dismissed - [Paras 1-10].

Writ Law - Alternative Remedy - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Procedural Framework for Listing Grievances - Petitioner challenged non-listing of matters through writ jurisdiction - High Court observed that the procedural framework of the Court offers two robust avenues for addressing such delays - First is the submission of a formal praecipe or mention memo before the learned Judge or Bench holding the respective roster for an expedited listing - Second is the submission of a comprehensive representation to the Registrar Judicial as the custodian of the judicial business - Held - Article 226 cannot be utilized as an administrative tool to bypass or disrupt the established listing procedures of the High Court - [Paras 7-9].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No order as to costs.

Civil Law - Consolidation of Suits - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Sections 24 and 151 - Petitioners filed suit for perpetual injunction and respondents filed separate suit for declaration of easementary right in different courts - Petitioners sought transfer and clubbing of both suits to avoid multiplicity of proceedings - Trial Court dismissed the transfer petition noting that the suit schedule properties causes of action and parties in both suits were different - High Court observed that while Section 151 permits consolidation for convenience and avoiding conflicting judgments such power requires substantial similarity of parties and issues - High Court found only three plaintiffs in the second suit were defendants in the first suit while other defendants were not parties - Suit properties and extents were entirely distinct - Held - Consolidation of suits and trying them together is not permissible in the absence of commonality of parties and properties - Trial Court order is well founded and requires no interference - Revision petition dismissed - [Paras 3-26].

Civil Law - Inherent Powers of Court - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 151 - Principles for clubbing of suits - Code of Civil Procedure does not specifically provide for consolidation of suits - Equity justice convenience and necessity govern the question of joint trial - Power can be exercised under Section 151 to save time costs and avoid conflicting judgments - When cause of action and issues raised in two or more suits are similar Courts can exercise power of consolidation - Consolidation cannot be ordered when suits are based on different and independent transactions - Held - Since properties and parties are different consolidation cannot be granted - [Paras 11-24].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Pending miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand closed.

Civil Law - Placement of Additional Documents - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order VII Rule 14(3) - Plaintiff sought to bring on record a Settlement Agreement dated 24/02/2025 executed during the pendency of the suit to record the correct description of the suit property - Defendant no. 4 opposed citing delay of one year and alleged collusion - The Court observed that under Order VII Rule 14(3) leave must be granted if the document was not in possession of the plaintiff at the time of filing the suit - Since the suit was filed in 2018 and the document was executed in 2025 it could not have been in the plaintiff's possession - The Court held that at the stage of granting leave to place additional documents the court is not required to consider the genuineness or evidentiary value which are matters of trial - Held - Settlement Agreement taken on record as the suit is at a pre-trial stage - [Paras 1-12].

Civil Law - Amendment of Plaint - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order VI Rule 17 - Rectification of property description - Suit for specific performance of Agreement to Sell dated 05/01/2016 - Plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to correct the Khasra and Mustatil numbers of the property and incorporate subsequent sale deeds between defendants - Defendants argued that amendment after eight years changes the nature of the suit and is barred by limitation - The Court applied the principles laid down in Revajeetu Builders noting that amendments necessary for determining the real question in controversy should be allowed liberally - It held that correcting a misdescription of property does not constitute a new cause of action nor changes the fundamental nature of the suit which remains one for specific performance - Held - Application for amendment allowed - [Paras 13-24 and 38-51].

Civil Law - Rectification of Instrument - Specific Relief Act 1963 - Section 26 - Mutual Mistake - Plaintiff sought additional prayer for rectification of the Agreement to Sell under Section 26 to reflect the true intention of the parties regarding property description - Defendant contended rectification cannot be granted as the plaintiff originally alleged misrepresentation/fraud in an FIR - The Court noted that the Proviso to Section 26(4) specifically empowers the Court to allow a party to amend the pleading at any stage to include a claim for rectification - Relying on Puran Ram v. Bhaguram the Court held that rectification of a part of the description of the suit property does not involve the question of limitation as it relates back to the date of filing of the suit which was within limitation - Held - Plaintiff permitted to incorporate prayer for rectification - [Paras 25-37].

Civil Law - Subsequent Events - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order VI Rule 17 - Incorporation of subsequent sale deeds - Plaintiff sought to include facts regarding transfers from defendant no. 2 to 3 and then to 4 during suit pendency - Defendant no. 4 did not object to these factual incorporations - The Court held such amendments are essential for complete adjudication and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings - Held - Amendments regarding subsequent events allowed - [Paras 50-52].

Decision: Applications I.A. 2697/2026 and I.A. 39889/2024 allowed – Plaintiff directed to file amended plaint and pay costs of Rs. 50,000 to D.H.C.B.A. Costs Account within two weeks.

Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 528 - Sections 85, 296, 351(2), 115(2), 3(5) and 351(3) BNS - Petitioners husband and his relatives sought quashing of FIR and criminal proceedings for offences relating to matrimonial cruelty and dowry harassment - Marriage solemnized in 2020 followed by allegations of physical and mental torture - wife alleged she was called a witch and harassed during pregnancy - Husband serving as Patwari allegedly threatened divorce - Charge-sheet filed and cognizance taken by Trial Court - Petitioners contended allegations were false and filed as counterblast to matrimonial discord - Record indicated that certain relatives resided separately in different districts and no specific overt acts were attributed to them - High Court observed that FIR and witness statements lacked specific dates - times - or distinct acts for individual petitioners - Allegations found to be leveled collectively against the entire family without specifying precise roles - Court noted that prosecution appeared to be launched by roping in the entire family without specific material - Held - Continuation of proceedings based on vague and omnibus allegations would amount to abuse of process of law - FIR and all consequential proceedings quashed - [Paras 1-27].

Criminal Law - Cruelty - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 - Section 85 - Relative of husband subjecting woman to cruelty - Scope of interference - Provisions relating to cruelty were intended to prevent harassment of women but are often used as instruments to settle personal scores - Judicial process cannot be used as an instrument of oppression - High Court highlighted that where allegations are sweeping and unsupported by concrete evidence - it must exercise inherent jurisdiction to prevent unnecessary harassment of innocent family members - Precedents establish that courts must be careful in proceeding against relatives unless specific instances of involvement are made out - Held - Vague and general allegations do not warrant prosecution - proceedings quashed - [Paras 13-25].

Decision: Petition allowed – FIR dated 19.01.2026 registered at Police Station Sirgitti - District Bilaspur and all consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom are quashed – Proceedings under Section 125(4) BNSS to be decided independently on their own merits.

Criminal Law - Murder - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 302 - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal - Accused allegedly strangulated his grandfather and dashed his head with a stone due to a property dispute - Trial Court acquitted the accused in Sessions Case No 241 of 1999 on 01.01.2000 - State challenged the acquittal on grounds that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the extra-judicial confession and medical evidence - High Court reappreciated the evidence noting the prosecution rested solely on the extra-judicial confession made to PW3 PW4 and PW5 - High Court observed that the incident occurred in March 1996 while the confession was allegedly made in November 1996 - Medical evidence indicated death due to blunt force trauma but discrepancies existed regarding strangulation - Held - Prosecution failed to prove the chain of circumstances or provide independent corroboration to the weak piece of evidence in the form of extra-judicial confession - Judgment of acquittal affirmed - [Paras 1-12].

Evidence Law - Extra-judicial Confession - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 24 - Reliability and Admissibility - Prosecution relied on confessions made to Rambhai Jivabhai PW3 Vrajlal Hakubhai Joshi PW4 and Bavkubhai Sisodia PW5 - Witnesses admitted they had no close acquaintance or relationship of confidence with the accused - Witnesses belonged to different communities than the accused - High Court found the narration of successive confessions to different persons at different places unnatural - Delay of eight months in making the alleged confession remained unexplained - Held - Extra-judicial confession is inherently weak and cannot be the sole foundation for conviction without being voluntary truthful and inspiring implicit confidence - Absent independent corroboration the evidence fails the test of credibility - [Paras 9-10].

Criminal Law - Acquittal Appeals - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 378 - Scope of Appellate Interference - Principles of Review - High Court reiterated that in acquittal cases there is a double presumption of innocence - Presumption is reinforced by the trial court order of acquittal - Appellate court should not disturb the findings of the trial court if the view taken is reasonable and plausible - Interference is permitted only in cases of manifest illegality or perversity - Held - Findings of the trial court were well-reasoned and did not suffer from any misappreciation of evidence - Acquittal maintained - [Paras 6-11].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Veraval in Sessions Case No. 241 of 1999 is confirmed – Bail bond of the respondent stands cancelled.

Criminal Law - Murder and Atrocities - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act 1989 - Section 3-2-va - Regular Bail - Appellant being the first accused challenged the order of the Special Court dismissing his bail plea in a murder case - Prosecution alleged the appellant and second accused reached the victims house in furtherance of common intention and brutally assaulted the victim with a chopper causing multiple injuries and amputation of a hand - Victim succumbed to injuries - Appellant contended innocence and prolonged custody since October 2023 - Prosecution opposed bail highlighting the appellants involvement in thirteen serious crimes including murder and rape - Investigation revealed appellant as a gang leader and drug addict with a history of detention under Kerala Anti-Social Activities Prevention Act 2007 - Report indicated that the appellant violated previous district entry restriction orders - Concerns raised regarding the safety of the victims family and intimidation of witnesses - Held - Considering the gravity of the offence and the prima facie materials and the criminal antecedents and the likelihood of tampering with evidence the appellant is not entitled to be released on bail - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-9].

Criminal Law - Habitual Offender - Kerala Anti-Social Activities Prevention Act 2007 - Sections 3 and 15 - Violation of Restriction Orders - Impact on Bail - Appellant previously detained for one year under KAAPA and violated restriction orders not to enter Ernakulam District - Records showed multiple pending cases for offences under IPC and NDPS Act - Residents of the crime scene locality reported to be living in fear - Prosecution established that bail would affect public tranquility and render police efforts futile - Held - Habitual engagement in criminal activities combined with the brutal nature of the present offence justifies continued incarceration - Trial directed to be completed while keeping the accused in custody - [Paras 7-9].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order of the Special Court, Ernakulam in Crl.M.P. No.01/2026 confirmed – Registry directed to forward a copy of the judgment to the Special Court.

Civil Law - Civil Procedure - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order VII Rule 10 and Order VII Rule 11 - Distinction between return and rejection of plaint - Appellant booked an apartment and paid full consideration of Rs. 1,45,26,800/- but respondent failed to deliver possession or execute sale deed - Appellant filed suit for specific performance and permanent injunction - Respondent filed application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC citing bar of jurisdiction due to RERA Act - Appellant filed application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC seeking return of plaint to approach RERA Jaipur - Commercial Court rejected the plaint outright under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and dismissed the application for return of plaint - High Court held that rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is for cases where no cause of action is disclosed or the suit is otherwise barred - Held - Where a grievance is real but lies before a different forum the proper course is to return the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC - Outright dismissal risks foreclosure of remedies and may attract the trappings of Order II Rule 2 CPC whereas return of plaint preserves the claim for adjudication before the competent forum - [Paras 1-8].

Civil Law - Regulatory Forum - Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016 - Forum Jurisdiction - Maintainability of suit - Promoter and allottee relationship acknowledged - Respondent objected to the forum of the Commercial Court based on the availability of an alternative remedy under the RERA Act - High Court observed that an objection to the forum is not an objection to the existence of the claim itself - Held - Commercial Court misdirected itself by dismissing the suit instead of returning the plaint - Return of plaint ensures no adverse implication on the merits of the claim - Impugned order modified to allow return of plaint with liberty to approach RERA - [Paras 2.2-7].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – Order of Commercial Court modified – Appellant entitled to return of plaint and refund of court fee – Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC dismissed – Application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC allowed with liberty to approach RERA Jaipur.

Civil Law - Recovery Suit - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 96 - Burden of Proof - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Sections 101 and 102 - Appellant sub-contractor filed a suit for recovery of Rs 5,06,029/- against the respondent for construction of police quarters - Plaintiff claimed outstanding dues on running bills and security deposit with 30 percent interest - Defendant denied the claims and cited lack of privity regarding interest rates but admitted a liability of Rs 35,096/- representing the balance security deposit - Trial Court partly decreed the suit for the admitted amount only - Plaintiff appealed seeking the remaining claim - High Court observed that the respondent remained absent during the hearing and the matter was heard ex-parte - High Court found that the plaintiff failed to produce original books of accounts bills or vouchers to substantiate the claim beyond the admitted amount - Held - Under Sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act the burden of proof lies squarely on the party asserting facts - Assertion is no proof and mere non-appearance of the defendant or weakness in the defense does not relieve the plaintiff of the obligation to lead cogent evidence - Trial Court correctly found that the plaintiff failed to prove the case within the four corners of the plaint - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-18].

Evidence Law - Books of Account - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 34 - Admissibility and Corroboration - Plaintiff relied on Exh 106 which was a photocopy of accounts maintained on plain paper - Defendant's witness admitted the handwriting belonged to his son but did not admit the contents as true or correct - Held - Admission of handwriting does not amount to admission of the contents of a document - Mere exhibiting of a document does not prove its contents - Under Section 34 entries in books of account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant but cannot be the sole basis for holding a person liable without independent corroborative evidence - Plaintiff failed to direct the defendant to produce originals or lay foundation for secondary evidence - Photocopies of account statements without corroboration by vouchers or receipts are insufficient to prove outstanding dues - [Paras 15-17].

Evidence Law - Witness Testimony - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 101 - Admissions in cross-examination - Plaintiff relied on the deposition of a Junior Clerk from the Geology Department regarding a No Objection Certificate (NOC) - Defense witness in cross-examination admitted a suggestion that Rs 35,096/- remained outstanding - Held - The suggestion put by the plaintiff's own advocate to the defense witness that only Rs 35,096/- was outstanding indicated the plaintiff was confining the relief to that specific amount - The plaintiff miserably failed to lead convincing documentary evidence to establish the higher claim - [Paras 13-14].

Decision: First appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of the trial court affirmed – Registry directed to return Record and Proceedings.

Criminal Law - Quashing of Order - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 528 - Petitioners sought setting aside of order dated 07.09.2024 passed by Special Mobile Magistrate Poonch - FIR No. 133/2023 was registered under Sections 452, 323, 427, 506 and 34 IPC over a land dispute - Police submitted Final Closure Report No. 01/2024 stating no offence was made out - Respondent No. 2 filed a protest petition alleging that the Investigating Officer was influenced by a senior police official and had tampered with witness statements - Magistrate accepted the protest petition and returned the closure report for further investigation - High Court observed that the Magistrate passed a cryptic order without assigning any reasons or pointing out lacunae in the investigation - Court held that a Magistrate is under a legal obligation to discuss the evidence collected and assign specific reasons as to why a closure report is not legal or why the investigation was unfair - Held - An order directing further investigation without justifying reasons is unsustainable and amounts to an abuse of process - Petition allowed - Impugned order set aside - Matter remanded for fresh consideration - [Paras 1-17].

Criminal Law - Judicial Procedure - Duty to Assign Reasons - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/s Shukla and Brothers (2010) 4 SCC 785 - High Court emphasized that recording of reasons is an essential feature of dispensation of justice - A litigant is entitled to know the grounds which weighed with the court in rejecting or granting a prayer - Reasons are considered the soul of orders - Absence of reasons causes prejudice as it prevents the person from knowing the grounds for the decision and creates impediments in challenging the order before higher courts - Held - Magistrate failed to confront witnesses despite allegations of statement tampering and passed a non-speaking order which is liable to be set aside - [Paras 13-16].

Decision: Petition allowed – Order dated 07.09.2024 passed by Special Mobile Magistrate (Sub Judge) Poonch set aside – Matter remanded back to the learned Magistrate to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of being heard to the parties.