Civil Writ - Foreigners Tribunal – Ex-Parte Declaration – Delay in Challenge – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner challenged the ex-parte opinion of the Foreigners' Tribunal after nearly six years – High Court held that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings, had appeared through counsel, and failed to adduce evidence despite multiple opportunities – Delay not justified – Petition dismissed solely on ground of laches and delay [Paras 1-4, 13, 20, 22].

Foreigners Act – Burden of Proof – Section 9 – Not Discharged – Tribunal held the petitioner failed to prove her Indian citizenship prior to 1971 as required under Section 9 – High Court observed that despite filing written statement, the petitioner failed to lead evidence, and absented herself from proceedings – Held: Petitioner failed to discharge burden imposed by law [Paras 2, 10-12, 21].

Writ Jurisdiction – Condonation of Delay – High Threshold in Citizenship Matters – Petitioner claimed poverty, illiteracy, and advocate’s inaction as cause of delay – Court held these reasons insufficient, especially when petitioner’s family members were not prevented from assisting – Held: Delay of 6 years fatal – Petitioner not entitled to invoke writ jurisdiction belatedly [Paras 5-9, 13, 16, 18-20].

COVID-19 Argument – Not Applicable – Pandemic Not a Valid Excuse – Petitioner argued delay due to COVID-19 disruption – Held: COVID limitation relief ended in 2022 – Petition filed in 2025 still barred by gross delay [Para 13].

Final Order – Writ Petition Dismissed – Opinion of Tribunal Sustained – High Court refused to interfere and directed that consequences of the Tribunal’s order would follow – Petition dismissed with directions to record the order in the Tribunal record [Paras 22-23].

Civil Revision – Partition Suit by Granddaughter – Hindu Succession Act – Suit Not Maintainable – Plaintiff sought partition and possession of maternal grandfather’s property during lifetime of her mother (coparcener) – Court held: granddaughter not coparcener; property is obstructed heritage, not ancestral in her hands – Only mother can seek partition – Plaintiff has no locus standi – Rejection of plaint proper under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Revision allowed [Paras 7-17].

Coparcenary – Rights of Daughters under Section 6, Hindu Succession Act – Daughter acquires coparcenary right by birth at par with son – But granddaughter cannot claim as coparcener in maternal grandfather’s property – Plaintiff’s claim was obstructed heritage, accruing only after mother’s death intestate – Hence, no vested right during mother’s lifetime [Paras 8-13].

Unobstructed vs. Obstructed Heritage – Explained – Property from paternal ancestors (father, grandfather, great-grandfather) is unobstructed heritage with birthright – Property from maternal grandfather is obstructed heritage, rights accrue only on death of last holder – Plaintiff’s claim fell under obstructed heritage, thus premature [Paras 12-13].

Cause of Action – Illusory – Plaintiff’s mother, alive and impleaded as defendant, did not claim partition – Plaintiff cannot substitute her mother’s claim – Cause of action pleaded was illusory – Clever drafting cannot confer jurisdiction – Plaint barred by law [Paras 17-18].

Section 14, Hindu Succession Act – Absolute Ownership of Female Coparcener – Once plaintiff’s mother receives her share, she becomes absolute owner – Plaintiff acquires rights only upon her mother’s death intestate – Hence, no present right or share to sustain suit [Para 18].

Decision – Impugned order dated 28.02.2023 rejecting application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC quashed – Plaint in RCS No. 224/2022 rejected – Civil Revision Application allowed [Para 19, Order].

Criminal Law - BNSS – Section 94 – Scope – Production of documents – Notice to University Registrar for scholarship records (2020–2025) challenged as unrelated to alleged exam malpractice – Petitioners argued no nexus with University; scholarships processed and disbursed by State through nodal officers – Held: Section 94 empowers Investigating Officer to call for documents necessary or desirable for investigation – Records prima facie relevant; Court cannot interfere with ongoing investigation under Article 226 – Notice upheld [Paras 18-20, 24].

Investigation – Judicial Interference – Well-demarcated functions of Police and Judiciary – Police have statutory right to investigate cognizable offences without judicial interference – Courts cannot quash investigation steps unless mala fides or abuse of power shown – Reliance placed on Khwaja Nazir Ahmad (AIR 1945 PC 18), J.A.C. Saldanha (1980), Neeharika Infrastructure (2021) – Writ jurisdiction not to be used to stall investigation [Paras 20-23].

Scholarship Records – University’s role – Petitioners argued University merely verifies forms, disbursal directly by Government – Court held: relevance of records is matter for Investigating Officer; not for writ court to assess at investigation stage – Prayer to quash notice rejected [Paras 9-10, 19, 24].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Notice under Section 94 BNSS sustained – Court declines to interfere with ongoing police investigation [Paras 24-25].

Civil Law - Commission Report – Re-inspection of Property – Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC – Remand Ordered – Petitioners (defendants) challenged Trial Court’s rejection of their request to re-entrust commission to Advocate-Commissioner to measure suit schedule property – Trial Court held re-entrustment impermissible as objections to commission report already filed – High Court held that no inquiry was conducted by Trial Court regarding why measurement was not done – Set aside impugned order and remanded for proper inquiry – Directions issued for re-consideration [Paras 1–21].

Commissioner's Report – Partial Execution – Re-entrustment Justified – Advocate-Commissioner had only recorded physical features and not measured properties due to alleged non-cooperation – Petitioners requested measurement with assistance of surveyor – Court held: If initial commission not fully executed, same commissioner can be directed to complete work, not barred by law – Reliance placed on Kushal Rao v. Shyam Rao (1997 (1) ALT 93) [Paras 16–18].

Trial Court Jurisdiction – Duty to Inquire Before Dismissal – Judicial Error – Court observed that dismissal of re-entrustment petition without inquiring into failure of commission execution amounted to procedural irregularity – Matter remanded with direction to conduct inquiry and decide whether warrant should be re-issued – Trial Court to complete process within four weeks [Paras 19–21].

Final Decision – Order Set Aside – Matter Remanded – High Court allowed revision petition, set aside order dated 29.07.2024 passed by I Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nellore – Directed trial court to conduct inquiry regarding Advocate-Commissioner’s failure to execute warrant as per terms, and decide on re-entrustment thereafter [Para 21].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Section 302 IPC – Upheld for Accused No. 4 – Based on testimony of four consistent eyewitnesses who specifically attributed sword blows to the accused – Minor inconsistencies held immaterial – Conviction for murder upheld despite lapses in investigation [Paras 11, 15-16].

Criminal Appeal – Acquittal of Co-Accused – Accused No. 2 Acquitted – No Direct Evidence – Conviction based solely on discovery panchnama which was not proved in accordance with law – Neither eyewitnesses nor circumstances linked him to the crime – Held: Conviction not sustainable – Acquittal ordered [Paras 12-14, 18].

Test Identification Parade – Procedural Lapses – TIP Not Trustworthy – Conduct of TIP not in accordance with law – Witnesses knew many dummy participants – No corroboration between parade and court testimony – However, in-court identification of Accused No. 4 by multiple witnesses deemed reliable – TIP discrepancies did not vitiate case against him [Paras 11(4), 12].

Discovery Evidence – Section 27 of Evidence Act – Knife Recovery Unreliable – Panch witnesses to discovery panchnama turned hostile – Investigating Officer failed to narrate full details of discovery – Recovery pertained to weapon allegedly used by another accused – Held: Discovery inadmissible and cannot form sole basis for conviction [Paras 13-14].

Police Notification – Section 135(1) of Gujarat Police Act – Notification Not Proved – Prosecution failed to produce certified copy or gazette publication of weapon prohibition order – Held: Conviction under Section 135(1) unsustainable due to non-compliance with Section 78 of Evidence Act [Para 17].

Faulty Investigation – Not a Ground for Acquittal – Though lapses occurred in identification and recovery processes, they do not override consistent eyewitness accounts – Court reiterated that faulty or negligent investigation alone does not justify acquittal if guilt is otherwise proven – Held: No interference with conviction of Accused No. 4 [Paras 10, 15].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction of Accused No. 4 under Section 302 IPC confirmed – Conviction under Section 135(1) Gujarat Police Act set aside – Accused No. 2 acquitted of all charges – State not having filed appeals against acquittals or certain IPC charges – Held: Criminal Appeal No. 1004 of 2017 allowed – Criminal Appeal No. 1149 of 2018 partly allowed [Paras 16-18].

Tenancy Law  – Personal bona fide requirement – Clause (g), Section 13(1), Bombay Rent Act – Liberal construction includes landlord’s dependent family – Eviction decree sustained – Landlords (a priestly family near a temple) proved insufficiency of existing premises and need for additional space for named family members; Trial Court erred by insisting those members be examined; Appellate Court rightly decreed eviction and High Court found no revisional infirmity – Held: “for occupation by himself” is not confined to the landlord individually and non-examination of the specific family members is not per se fatal [Paras 5, 15-21, 22-24].

Evidence – Unimpeached testimony and absence of cross-examination – Order VIII Rule 10 CPC – Court’s duty to evaluate merits still applies – Decree valid where plaintiff’s case, even if uncontested, independently proves bona fide need – Tenant’s failure to cross-examine PW-1/PW-2 or lead rebuttal evidence left landlord’s evidence intact; Trial Court’s approach was erroneous; Appellate Court corrected error; High Court approves – Principle from Balraj Taneja applied to require judicial satisfaction, which was met on facts [Paras 6-11, 15-21].

Comparative hardship – Tenant operating multiple firms – Evidence (including invitation card, Exh. 32) unimpeached – Hardship balanced in favour of landlord – No material to show tenant’s efforts to find alternative premises post-suit – Finding of greater hardship to landlord upheld [Paras 25-26].

Scope of revisional jurisdiction – Interference limited to jurisdictional error or material irregularity – Appellate decree based on proper appreciation of law and evidence – No perversity or jurisdictional error – Revision dismissed [Paras 24, 27-28].

Decision: Civil Revision Application dismissed – Eviction decree on ground of personal bona fide requirement affirmed – Stay to continue for four weeks subject to undertaking. [Paras 27-28; Final Order].

Civil Revision – Transfer of Suits – Section 24 CPC – Transfer Allowed – Applicants sought transfer of defamation suits from Ponda, Goa, to Maharashtra citing threat to life and fair trial concerns – Court held: Bombay High Court, being common High Court for Maharashtra and Goa under Article 231, has jurisdiction to entertain inter-State transfer under Section 24 CPC – Apprehensions of threat reasonable given history of murders of rationalists, chargesheets linking accused to Respondent No.1, and overwhelming presence of Respondent’s followers in Goa – Transfer justified in interest of justice [Paras 28-45, 64-70].

Maintainability – Section 24 vs. Section 25 CPC – Objection Overruled – Respondent contended only Supreme Court could transfer suits between States under Section 25 CPC – Held: When both transferor and transferee courts are subordinate to a common High Court, Section 24 CPC applies – Applications before Bombay High Court maintainable – Rule 3 of Appellate Side Rules does not bar Principal Seat from hearing [Paras 28-36].

Fair Trial – Apprehension of Threat – Reasonable – Applicants included son of Dr. Narendra Dabholkar and journalists critical of Respondent – They cited chargesheets in Dabholkar, Pansare, Kalburgi, and Gauri Lankesh murder cases showing involvement of Respondent’s followers – Court held such apprehension of threat to life and denial of fair trial at Ponda not illusory – Balance of convenience favoured transfer [Paras 43-49].

Dominus Litis – Plaintiff’s Right vs. Ends of Justice – Respondent argued prejudice and inconvenience if suits shifted – Court reiterated plaintiff’s right to choose forum is subject to overriding principle that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done – Where atmosphere threatens fairness, transfer necessary despite inconvenience to plaintiff [Paras 38-42].

Decision – Applications under Section 24 CPC allowed – Special Civil Suits Nos. 14/2017, 15/2017, 35/2018, 25/2018, and 26/2018 pending before Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ponda, Goa, transferred to competent courts at Mumbai – Ordered accordingly [Paras 70-73, Order].

Civil Revision – Waqf Suit – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Plaint Rejected – Plaintiff, a devotee, sought declaration and possession over Survey Nos. 51 and 52 as Waqf property of Dargah – Tribunal rejected applications under Order 7 Rule 11 – Held: Suit not maintainable as properties never included in gazetted list under Section 5 of Waqf Act, 1954/1995 – No statutory procedure followed – Suit barred by limitation under Section 6 proviso – Relief of declaration cleverly drafted to overcome legal bars – Plaint rejected – Revision allowed [Paras 13-19, 25, 27, 32].

Waqf Property – Gazette Notification Mandatory – Sections 4-6 of Waqf Act, 1954/1995 – Inclusion of property in Waqf list requires survey, enquiry and gazette notification – Mere letter dated 11.12.1979 or corrigendum cannot confer status – No evidence of statutory procedure – Suit properties not proved as Waqf – Tribunal’s finding perverse [Paras 14-18].

Limitation – Section 6 of Waqf Act – Suit filed after 47 years – Proviso mandates filing within one year from publication of list – Properties not notified in 1973 list – Declaration suit of 2020 manifestly barred – Section 107 cannot revive extinguished rights – Relief time-barred [Paras 19-25].

Section 107, Waqf Act – No Retrospective Operation – Protects suits for possession of Waqf property – But does not save stale claims barred before 1995 Act – SC in T. Kaliamurthi (2008) and K. Akbar Ali (2021) held extinguished rights cannot be revived – Plaintiff’s declaratory relief barred [Paras 22-25].

Clever Drafting – Abuse of Process – Plaintiff avoided challenging old sale-deeds (1985, 1988) and couched plaint to declare land as Waqf – Cause of action illusory, bar of limitation camouflaged – Absurd pleadings and oblique intentions – Abuse of law – Fit case to reject plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 [Paras 20-21, 27].

Decision – Civil Revision Application allowed – Common order dated 07.09.2021 by Waqf Tribunal quashed – Plaint in Waqf Suit No. 66 of 2020 rejected – Stay of judgment granted for four weeks to enable appeal [Order, Paras 32, 36].

Civil Writ - Public Employment – Appointment on Forged Documents – Termination – Held: Appointment obtained through forged and fabricated certificate is void ab initio – Fraud vitiates all – No equity, estoppel, or statutory right arises from such fraudulent employment – Petitioner cannot claim protection under service regulations or Article 311(2) when initial appointment itself was fraudulent [Paras 7-9.1].

Fraud in Employment – No Right to Salary or Service Benefits – Supreme Court Precedents Applied – Fraudulent entry into service confers no legal entitlement to salary, pension, or continuity of service – Principles from Jainendra Singh v. State of U.P., (2012) 8 SCC 748 and R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala, (2004) 2 SCC 105 reaffirmed – Even long years of service cannot cure illegality of appointment [Paras 8.1-9.2].

Employer’s Duty – Negligence in Verification – Responsibility to be Fixed – Held: While petitioner’s appointment was rightly terminated, the employer (DHBVNL) failed in its duty to properly verify certificates during probation – Laxity allowed fraudulent entry into public service for 10 years – Court directed Managing Director of DHBVNL to fix responsibility of negligent officials and take disciplinary action – Compliance report to be filed within 8 weeks [Paras 10-13].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Termination upheld as legally valid – Fraudulent appointment cannot be protected – However, disciplinary accountability fixed on negligent officers who failed to verify documents [Paras 11, 13].