Civil Law - Review – Scope and Limitation – Appeal Cannot Be Reargued – The Appellant filed a Review Application seeking reconsideration of the dismissal of his probate appeal – Held: Review jurisdiction is narrow and cannot be used to reargue the case or replace conclusions already arrived at after due adjudication – Application dismissed for want of any error apparent on record [Paras 25-27].

Probate – Proof of Will – Twin Conditions under Section 69 Not Fulfilled – Appellant failed to prove that the signature on the Will was in the handwriting of the Testatrix – Mere absence of cross-examination or proof of attesting witness’s signature insufficient – Held: Both conditions under Section 69 (attesting witness and Testatrix signature) are mandatory – Review dismissed [Paras 23, 27, 29-33].

Presumption under Section 90 – Will Not Thirty Years Old at Filing – Argument that Will was 30 years old and hence presumed genuine under Section 90 of the Evidence Act rejected – Held: Date of filing probate petition in 2000 is relevant; Will dated 1972 did not meet threshold at the time – Presumption not applicable [Para 34].

Objections by Legal Heirs – Absence Does Not Displace Legal Requirement – Though Respondent No.3 did not file objections initially, Court held that absence of objections cannot replace legal requirement of proving execution of Will – Argument already addressed in earlier judgment – Review on this ground also not maintainable [Paras 12, 28].

*Decision – Review Application Dismissed – Judgment Upheld – Court held no error apparent on face of record – Mandatory statutory requirements under Section 69 not satisfied – Review dismissed and earlier dismissal of probate appeal upheld [Paras 27, 35].

Matrimonial Law – Civil Revision - Interim Maintenance – Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act – Maintenance to Wife Set Aside – The petitioner-husband challenged the Family Court’s order directing him to pay ₹30,000/- per month each to his wife and son – While not disputing maintenance to the son, the petitioner contended that the wife was financially self-sufficient with substantial dividend income and valuable immovable assets – Held: The respondent-wife received significant income through dividends and owned immovable property – Interim maintenance to the wife not justified – Order of Family Court awarding maintenance to wife set aside; maintenance to son upheld [Paras 2, 11-16, 19-20].

Maintenance – Scope and Object of Section 24 HMA – Determination of "Sufficient Income" – Section 24 intended to ensure support during proceedings, not to enrich financially capable spouse – Held: Maintenance under Section 24 is for sustenance at the standard enjoyed in matrimonial home – Where wife has independent substantial income and assets, claim for interim maintenance not sustainable [Paras 13-16, 19].

Suppression of Income – Dividend and Asset Ownership – Conduct of Wife – Dividends from Scan World Pvt. Ltd. and re-transfer of property during proceedings considered material – Held: Respondent’s act of restraining dividend payout through NCLT and subsequent explanations for property transfer not bona fide – Court found deliberate suppression of income to justify maintenance claim – Family Court erred in overlooking these facts [Paras 5-8, 15].

Final Decision – Civil Revision Petition Partly Allowed – Order awarding maintenance to wife set aside – Maintenance of ₹30,000/- per month to son and NEET coaching fee of ₹2.77 lakhs already paid by petitioner not challenged – Held: Family Court order modified accordingly; no costs awarded [Paras 12, 20].

Civil Law - Injunction – Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC - Prima Facie Case – Co-sharer Rights – Injunction Denied – Lower appellate court granted interim injunction restraining petitioner from alienating suit land – Trial court had earlier rejected the injunction application – Held: Petitioner derived rights through a valid decree and registered Will from deceased co-sharer Chhajju – Revenue records reflected his possession – No injunction can be granted against a co-sharer in settled law – Appellate court's interference unsustainable [Paras 5, 9-10].

Fraud Allegation – Pending Civil Suit – Not a Ground for Interim Relief – Plaintiff challenged previous decree on grounds of fraud – Held: Whether decree was obtained by fraud is a matter of trial – Cannot form basis for interim injunction – Prima facie rights of petitioner remain unaffected at this stage [Para 8].

Balance of Convenience – Title and Possession in Petitioner’s Favour – Registered Will and consent decree favoured petitioner – Revenue record corroborated possession – Held: Balance of convenience tilted in favour of petitioner – No irreparable harm shown by respondent – Trial court order rightly declined injunction [Paras 9-10].

Decision – Civil Revision Allowed – Injunction Rejected – High Court held that the learned Additional District Judge failed to appreciate material facts and settled principles regarding co-sharers – Order dated 16.01.2014 set aside – Trial court’s order dated 10.04.2012 restored – Application for injunction rejected [Paras 10-11].

Criminal Contempt – Attack on Advocate Commissioners – Interference with Administration of Justice – Held Guilty – Court-appointed Advocate Commissioners were assaulted by a mob while executing commission in CS(OS) 4024/2014 concerning counterfeit Samsung products – Several Advocates sustained grievous injuries and were forced to abandon commission – Held: Obstruction of Court-appointed Commissioners amounts to direct interference with administration of justice – Such acts undermine judicial authority and cannot be condoned [Paras 1-29, 75-82].

Scope of Contempt Jurisdiction – Standard of Proof – Wilfulness Essential – Contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature – Disobedience must be wilful, intentional and calculated – Mere bystanders or uninformed persons without knowledge of Court orders cannot be punished for criminal contempt though they may face IPC trial – Only persons shown to have incited or participated with knowledge of Court orders were convicted [Paras 69-74, 76-78].

Plea of Alibi – Not Accepted – Respondents 1, 4 and 13 claimed absence during the incident – Pleas rejected – Affidavits and circumstances showed they had knowledge of Court orders and incited mob violence to thwart commission – Physical absence did not absolve responsibility [Para 80].

Decision – Respondents 1 (Rajullah Khan), 2 (Asraf Ali), 4 (Nasrul Haque), 10 (Saheb Alam), 11 (Rashid Iqbal), 13 (Rumaish Akhtar), 17 (Niyaz Ahmed), 18 (Md. Asif), 21 (Anwar Hossain), 22 (Lalchand Khan), 24 (Nishar Ali) and 27 (Ajmatullah Khan) held guilty of criminal contempt – Sentenced to simple imprisonment for one day and fine of Rs. 2,000 each – Remaining respondents discharged – Observations confined to contempt proceedings, independent of pending IPC trials [Paras 82-88].

Matrimonial Law – Maintenance - Section 24 HMA – Interim Maintenance to Spouse – Independent Income and Assets – Order to Wife Set Aside – Wife was a Director in a diagnostic company and had received substantial dividends in consecutive financial years; she also held valuable immovable properties – Held: Section 24 aims to ensure sustenance commensurate with the standard of living, but where the spouse already has sufficient independent income, interim maintenance is unwarranted – Family Court’s award of ₹30,000 p.m. to the wife set aside [Paras 13-16, 19-20].

Child Maintenance and Educational Expenses – No Challenge by Husband – Continuation – Husband accepted and complied with ₹30,000 p.m. for the minor son and payment of NEET coaching/educational fees – Family Court’s directions on child’s maintenance and educational expenses left undisturbed [Paras 2, 11-12, 20].

Assessment of “Sufficient Income” – Dividends and Property Holdings Considered – Self-Restraint on Dividend Receipt Irrelevant – Receipts by RTGS for three financial years were admitted; re-transfer/settlement of a valuable property during pendency viewed as lacking bona fides – Court found the wife possessed adequate means and declined interim spousal maintenance [Paras 5-6, 10, 14-16].

Guiding Principles – Capability to Earn vs. Actual Sufficiency – Supreme Court in Shailja v. Kobbanna: mere capability to earn is not a ground to reduce maintenance; Rajnesh v. Neha: no straightjacket formula, consider status, needs, qualifications, and independent income – Applied here, the wife’s actual income and assets rendered further interim maintenance unnecessary [Paras 17-19].

Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227 – Interference with Interim Maintenance Order – Justified where the Family Court overlooks material factors like existing substantial income and assets of the claimant – Order to wife interfered with; order for the child maintained [Paras 14, 16, 19-20].

Decision – Civil Revision Petition partly allowed – Interim maintenance to the wife under Section 24 HMA set aside; maintenance and education-related directions for the minor son remain; no order as to costs [Para 20].

Criminal Law – Cheating & Breach of Trust – Settlement through MOU – Complainant alleged misuse of signatures and cheating of ₹4 crores – FIR 355/2008 registered – During investigation, parties entered into MOU (14.06.2008) where petitioners paid ₹5 crores in full and final settlement, both agreed to withdraw civil/criminal cases – Once complainant accepted benefit, he cannot later approbate and reprobate by filing fresh complaints – Criminal proceedings for same allegations unsustainable [Paras 7-11].

Closure Report – Effect – FIR 355/2008 closed as civil in nature, accepted by Trial Court on 05.08.2011 – Protest petition later dismissed for default – Subsequent protest petition after long delay impermissible – Once closure report accepted, criminal proceedings attain finality – Fresh complaints barred [Paras 9, 12, 13].

Further Investigation – Limits – Trial Court ordered reinvestigation u/s 156(3) CrPC in 2018 – Held improper – Power to direct further investigation is extraordinary and sparingly exercisable – Where closure report based on settlement already accepted, directing reinvestigation defeats finality – Reliance placed on Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali (2013) 5 SCC 762 [Paras 12, 13].

Doctrines – Estoppel & Approbate/Reprobate – Complainant, having received ₹5 crores in settlement, estopped from denying binding effect of MOU – Cannot blow hot and cold – Repeated complaints constitute abuse of process [Para 11].

Standard for Discharge – At charge stage, Court must examine if prima facie case exists – Here, entire case rested on allegations already settled – No new evidence unearthed in further investigation – Cognizance by Magistrate held mechanical without considering earlier closure and settlement – Discharge warranted [Paras 12-14].

Decision – Order of XI Metropolitan Magistrate dated 22.11.2024 dismissing discharge petition set aside – Petitioners discharged in C.C. No. 1163 of 2023 – Criminal revision allowed – Connected miscellaneous petitions closed [Para 14].

Service Law – Examination – Judicial Review of Answer Key – Manifest Error in Law – Interference Warranted - Petitioners challenged the official answer key for Question No. 28 in Set 'K', concerning a Magistrate’s power under Cr.P.C. – Court found that the correct answer was both cognizable and non-cognizable offences, whereas HSSC had opted only for cognizable – Held: Where the answer is manifestly wrong and statutory provision (Section 155(2) Cr.P.C.) clearly provides otherwise, Court can interfere even in academic matters – Answer key to that extent is incorrect [Paras 7-12].

Answer Key – Expert Committee Report – Limited Interference – No Roving Inquiry by Court - While answer to Question No. 28 was found to be clearly erroneous in law, Court refused to interfere with answers to other questions like Question No. 94 where dispute was based on comparison between different sets – Held: Court is not an expert body and will not conduct roving inquiry unless manifest illegality is shown [Paras 13-14].

Recruitment Process – Consistency Across Multiple Sets – Responsibility of Examining Body - Court noted concern that differing answers across question paper sets for identical questions leads to confusion and litigation – Suggested that recruitment bodies must ensure internal consistency across all versions of papers [Para 16].

Decision – Petition Partly Allowed – Answer Key Rectified for Question No. 28 – Matter Remitted - Court held that HSSC’s answer to Question No. 28 in Set 'K' was legally incorrect – Directed Commission to re-evaluate the performance of petitioners in light of the correct answer and take further action as per rules – No interference made with other disputed questions [Paras 15-16].

Temporary Injunction – Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC – Trespasser vs. True Owner – Refusal of relief – Plaintiff sought injunction on basis of alleged long possession over Survey No.643; no sale deed or lawful title produced; Khasra entry of 1990–91 held baseless—Held: Injunction cannot be granted to protect unlawful possession against true owner; concurrent findings of Civil Court and Appellate Court upheld [Paras 14–20].

Revenue Entries – Section 115 MP Land Revenue Code – Collector’s permission mandatory – Orders quashed – SDO ordered correction of entries without Collector’s recommendation; appellate orders affirmed same—Held: Though findings justified on merits, procedure under Section 115 must be complied with; orders of 26.11.2019 and 05.04.2021 quashed; matter remanded to SDO to obtain Collector’s permission and pass fresh orders [Para 21].

Decision – M.P. No.1564/2022 dismissed (no injunction) – M.P. No.1722/2021 partly allowed by quashing revenue appellate orders; case remanded to SDO for fresh decision [Para 22].

Examination Law - Civil Writ - OMR Evaluation – Incorrect Bubbling of Roll Number – DSSSB Exams – Petitions filed against conflicting CAT orders involving identical issues – One candidate’s OMR sheet was evaluated despite incorrect bubbling and later rejected, while the other’s was not evaluated at all – Held: If the OMR was already evaluated and candidate declared successful, later rejection is impermissible; where OMR was not evaluated due to technical default, no relief can be granted [Paras 1-5, 35-36, 42-46, 56].

Procedural Error – Evaluation of OMR Answer Sheets – Candidate Benefited by Prior Evaluation – Relief Granted - In W.P.(C) 1282/2025 (Kusum Gupta), despite bubbling error, candidate’s OMR sheet was evaluated and she was shortlisted – Later rejection deemed arbitrary – Directed that appointment letter be issued subject to eligibility – Entitled to notional benefits without actual pay [Paras 38-43, 56].

Instructions to Candidates – Mandatory Nature – Mistakes in Bubbling Roll Number – Strict Compliance Required - In W.P.(C) 17595/2024 (Niharika Puhan), OMR sheet not evaluated due to incorrect bubbling – Despite writing roll number correctly in digits, non-compliance with explicit instructions proved fatal – Tribunal’s order set aside – Petition dismissed [Paras 31-33, 49-53, 55].

Relief Limited to Litigating Candidate – No Reopening of Entire Result - Court clarified that similar candidates disqualified for identical reasons cannot claim automatic relief unless they have approached Tribunal/Court – Judgment confined to litigating party [Paras 47-48].

Role of Invigilators – Countersigning OMR – Responsibility to Detect Errors – Considered but Not Determinative - Though Court noted invigilator countersigned the OMR sheets, this factor alone does not excuse candidate’s responsibility to fill details accurately [Paras 36-39].

Decision – Petition by DSSSB in W.P.(C) 17595/2024 Allowed – Tribunal’s Order Set Aside – Petition by Kusum Gupta in W.P.(C) 1282/2025 Allowed – DSSSB Directed to Issue Appointment Letter within Eight Weeks – Relief Limited to Present Litigants [Paras 55-57].