Civil Procedure - Withdrawal and Fresh Suit - Order 23 Rule 1(3) CPC - Error in Granting Permission to File Fresh Suit - The court held that the trial court committed a grave error by allowing the respondents to file a fresh suit without recording any finding in the impugned order. The petitioner was made to litigate for 17 years, and the order did not provide the required specific findings on the formal defect that warranted withdrawal and refiling of the suit. The order was thus set aside to the extent it granted permission to file a fresh suit [Paras 15, 16].

Prolonged Litigation - Prejudice to Petitioner - Absence of Specific Findings on Formal Defect - The trial court failed to appreciate the prejudice caused to the petitioner, who litigated for 17 years. The mention of an incorrect genealogy in the plaint could not be considered a formal defect, and the respondents should have sought amendment rather than withdrawal and refiling. The impugned order was deemed unjust and prejudicial to the petitioner [Paras 9, 10, 13, 15].

Decision - Revision Petition Allowed - Fresh Suit Permission Set Aside - The revision petition was allowed, setting aside the impugned order to the extent of granting permission for a fresh suit. The suit was to be treated as dismissed as withdrawn, and the respondents were not given any right to move for amendment of their plaint in future applications [Paras 16, 17].

Tenancy Law - Unauthorized Sub-letting - Expiry of Lease - Section 13 East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act - The court held that the stipulation in the lease deed allowing sub-letting ceased to be effective after the lease expired. Sub-letting by legal heirs of the tenant without landlord's permission post lease expiry is unauthorized, warranting eviction [Paras 18, 35, 39].

Effect of Withdrawal of Ejectment Petitions - Legal Recognition of Sub-tenants - Compromise and Ratification - Withdrawal of earlier ejectment petitions by the landlord indicated compromise and ratification of sub-tenancies existing at that time. Sub-tenants inducted before withdrawal were recognized as authorized tenants, but further sub-letting without landlord's permission remained unauthorized [Paras 25, 35].

Statutory Tenancy and Legal Heirs - Limitation on Sub-letting Rights - The legal heirs of the original tenant, having statutory tenancy, could not sub-let without landlord's consent after lease expiry. Sub-letting post lease expiry without such consent is illegal, resulting in eviction orders for both the sub-tenants and the legal heirs [Paras 19, 35, 39].

Decision - Partial Allowance of Revision - Validity of Sub-tenancies Recognized Under Compromise - The revision petition was partly allowed, maintaining eviction orders against legal heirs and unauthorized sub-tenants, while validating sub-tenancies established before the lease expiry and recognized under compromise or withdrawal of ejectment petitions. Proportionate rent was to be paid for recognized sub-tenancies, and eviction rights for these sub-tenants were reserved for lawful grounds under the Rent Act [Paras 42, 43].

Property Law - Adverse Possession by State - Article 300A Constitution of India - Requirement of Due Process for Property Deprivation - The court held that the State cannot claim ownership of land by adverse possession. Article 300A stipulates that property deprivation must be by authority of law, not by executive fiat. The State's action of constructing a road on the plaintiffs' land without compensation or following legal procedures was arbitrary and unfair [Paras 18, 19, 30].

Evidence - Revenue Records and Ownership - No State Ownership Recorded - Failure to Prove Adverse Possession - The revenue records showed the plaintiffs as owners in possession, and there were no entries indicating State ownership or consent for road construction. The State failed to provide evidence of when the road was constructed or under what scheme, negating its claim of adverse possession [Paras 18, 19].

Legal Principles - Doctrine of Eminent Domain - Compensation and Legal Process - The court emphasized that the State must follow the due process of law for land acquisition, including compensation to the landowners, as stipulated by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The State's arbitrary appropriation of land without compensation violated the plaintiffs' constitutional rights [Paras 28, 29, 34].

Decision - Appeal Accepted - Judgments and Decrees Set Aside - The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgments and decrees of the lower courts were set aside. The suit of the plaintiffs was decreed, recognizing them as the owners of the suit land and entitling them to vacant possession. The State was given three months to decide if it required the land, in which case it must pay compensation according to law; otherwise, the land must be returned to the plaintiffs [Paras 36, 37].

Municipal Law - Removal of President - No Confidence Motion - Section 22 Punjab Municipal Act - Principles of Natural Justice - The court held that once the petitioner participated in the fresh election process and recorded a 'No Objection,' he could not later claim that his explanation was not duly considered or that his removal violated principles of natural justice. The petitioner's involvement in the election process and acceptance of its outcome negated his claims of procedural impropriety [Paras 9, 15, 16].

Legal Principles - Speaking Order - Requirement of Reasons - Duty of Competent Authority to Consider Representation - The court found that the competent authority had duly considered the petitioner's representation blaming the opposition for the 'No Confidence' resolution, thus fulfilling the requirement to record reasons and consider explanations. The contention that the explanation was not considered was found to be unfounded [Paras 22, 23].

Judicial Review - Impact of Participation in Fresh Election - Estoppel by Acquiescence - The court emphasized that the petitioner's subsequent participation in the election process estopped him from challenging the previous removal order. His 'No Objection' to the election indicated acquiescence and acceptance of the process, rendering any previous procedural lapses irrelevant [Paras 16, 19, 27, 29].

Decision - Petitions Dismissed - No Procedural Violation Found - The court dismissed the petitions, holding that the petitioner's removal followed due process and his subsequent actions nullified any claims of procedural injustice. The petitioner's challenge to the removal was invalidated by his acceptance and participation in the subsequent electoral process [Paras 28, 31].

Constitutional Law - Institutional Preference in Admissions - Article 14 - Validity of University-Wise Distribution of Seats - The court upheld the institutional preference policy for admission to PG medical courses, which grants 50% of state quota seats to candidates from the same university. The policy was found to be neither illegal nor unconstitutional, and not violative of Article 14. The Supreme Court in D.N. Chanchala v. The State of Mysore, AIR 1971 SC 1762, upheld a similar policy, finding it valid and reasonable to cater to educational needs specific to university regions [Paras 12, 13, 14, 15].

Preference vs. Discrimination - Adverse Consequences Not Equivalent to Legal Injury - The court stated that every adverse consequence is not a legal injury. The grievance of the petitioners, who claimed discrimination due to institutional preference, was found not to have a constitutional perspective. The policy aimed at maintaining educational standards and continuity within universities, which justified its rational basis and reasonable connection to the object of the rules [Paras 14, 20, 28].

Legal Precedents - Institutional Preference Upheld by Apex Court - The court referred to several Supreme Court judgments, including M.R. Mini v. State of Kerala, AIR 1980 SC 838, and Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, 1984 (3) SCC 654, which upheld institutional preference in admissions. The court reiterated that such preference is not discriminatory if it does not preclude students from other universities from competing and does not exceed 50% of the total seats [Paras 12, 13, 15].

Decision - Petitions Dismissed - Institutional Preference Policy Upheld - The petitions were dismissed, and the court upheld the impugned notifications clarifying the institutional preference policy. The policy was found to be in line with constitutional norms and judicial precedents, ensuring fair competition and non-arbitrary selection processes [Paras 21, 28, 29].

Tort Law - Electrocution - Liability of Power Corporation - No Contributory Negligence - Compensation and Damages - The court held that the power corporation was liable for damages due to negligence in maintaining electric wires, even if the construction of the house was raised later without permission. The defense of contributory negligence was rejected as the corporation had not proven it took adequate precautions to prevent the mishap [Paras 7, 17].

Evidence - Proving Negligence - Duty of Care by Power Corporation - Lack of Proper Protection for High Voltage Wires - The corporation's failure to ensure the safety of 11 KV electric wires passing over residential areas was deemed negligent. The trial court awarded Rs. 10,00,000 as compensation, which was enhanced to Rs. 20,00,000 by the lower appellate court [Paras 5, 6].

Legal Principles - Strict Liability - Public Safety and Maintenance of Electrical Installations - The court emphasized the principle of strict liability, holding that entities managing inherently dangerous installations must ensure safety and prevent accidents. The corporation's argument of illegal construction was not a valid defense against its responsibility for public safety [Paras 8, 9, 11, 12].

Decision - Appeal Dismissed - Compensation Upheld - The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower courts' decisions that awarded Rs. 20,00,000 in compensation to the respondent. It was held that the corporation could not absolve itself of liability by citing unauthorized construction, as it failed to take necessary precautions [Paras 18, 19].

Civil Procedure - Recalling Witness for Cross-Examination - Section 151 CPC - Specific Remedy Under Order 18 Rule 17 - The court held that the inherent powers under Section 151 CPC cannot be invoked when a specific remedy is available under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC. The trial court correctly dismissed the petitioner's application to recall RW-1 Dr.Paviter Kaur for further cross-examination, as the petitioner did not utilize the specific remedy available [Paras 12, 13].

Electronic Evidence - Admissibility - Section 65-B Indian Evidence Act - Certificate Requirement - The court emphasized that electronic records must be accompanied by a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act at the time of tendering evidence. The CDs presented by the petitioner were not admissible as the requisite certificate was not produced. The petitioner's request to submit a true copy of the CDs was denied [Paras 21, 23, 24].

Judicial Discretion - Use of Inherent Powers - Restriction When Specific Provisions Exist - The court reiterated that inherent powers under Section 151 CPC should be used with circumspection and only when no specific provision exists. The trial court's discretion in denying the application under Section 151 CPC was exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily [Para 12].

Decision - Revision Petition Dismissed - No Merit Found - The revision petition was dismissed as the petitioner failed to provide the necessary certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act at the time of submitting the CDs. The trial court's decision to reject the application for recalling the witness and for submitting the CDs was upheld [Paras 25, 26].

Family Law - Nullity of Marriage - Sections 5(i) and 11 Hindu Marriage Act - Validity of Marriage in Light of Previous Marital Status - The court held that the previous marriage of the respondent was declared null and void before the Lok Adalat on March 31, 2003, rendering the respondent's marriage to the petitioner on February 23, 2003, void. However, it was found that the actual marriage took place on February 23, 2007, not February 23, 2003, as stated in the marriage certificate used for immigration purposes [Paras 14, 17].

Evidence - Marriage Certificate - Rebuttable Presumption - Marriage certificate prepared for immigration purposes does not conclusively prove the date of marriage - The presumption attached to the marriage certificate is rebuttable. The court found that the marriage certificate dated April 1, 2003, indicating a marriage date of February 23, 2003, was prepared with the objective of facilitating immigration to Canada. The true marriage date was February 23, 2007, as admitted by the petitioner in cross-examination [Paras 14, 17].

Estoppel - Silence and Delay in Challenging Marriage - Silence of the petitioner from 2003 to 2010 created an estoppel against him from challenging the marriage as a nullity - The petitioner did not challenge the marriage until 2010, which created an estoppel against him. The court found that no marriage had actually taken place on February 23, 2003, but rather on February 23, 2007 [Para 17].

Decision - Appeal Dismissed - No Infirmity in Lower Court's Judgment - The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower court's judgment that the marriage was not a nullity under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The petitioner was not allowed to take advantage of the marriage certificate prepared for immigration purposes [Paras 19, 20].

Taxation Law - Validity of Tribunal Orders - Section 57 Haryana VAT Act - Quorum of Members - Order Passed by Remaining Members after Retirement of One Member - The court held that when a matter is heard by a full-member bench, the decision must be pronounced by the same bench. If one member retires before the pronouncement, the bench is no longer validly constituted, and the remaining members cannot pronounce the judgment. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter remitted for fresh decision [Paras 13, 14, 19].

Judicial Procedure - Composite Functioning of Tribunal Members - Bench Dynamics - The court emphasized that tribunal members function as a composite body, discussing and exchanging views until the final pronouncement. If any member retires before the judgment is delivered, the dynamic is disrupted, invalidating the judgment process [Para 13].

Legal Precedents - Surendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh - The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Surendra Singh, which establishes that a judgment must be pronounced by the same members who heard the case, as they may change their views until the final pronouncement [Para 15].

Decision - Appeal Allowed - Matter Remitted - The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Haryana Tax Tribunal for fresh adjudication in accordance with the provisions of Section 56 of the Haryana VAT Act [Paras 18, 19].