Civil Procedure – Preliminary Issue – Maintainability of Suit – Petitioner challenged the order deciding the maintainability of the suit as a preliminary issue based on an alleged admission during cross-examination – High Court held that the issue involved mixed questions of fact and law, unsuitable for determination as a preliminary issue under Order XIV, Rule 2 of CPC – Order set aside and application rejected – Preliminary issues must be purely of law unless facts are admitted in pleadings [Paras 1-12].

Order XIV, Rule 2 of CPC – Determination of Preliminary Issues – Court lacks jurisdiction to decide mixed questions of fact and law unless facts are clearly admitted in pleadings – In this case, admission was from cross-examination, not pleadings or affidavits – Misapplication of Order XIV, Rule 2 by the trial court [Paras 6-10].

Application under Article 227 – Maintainability and Scope – High Court emphasizes proper use of Article 227 to correct jurisdictional errors – Trial court’s erroneous decision on preliminary issue corrected [Para 11].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 11.04.2023 set aside – Application under Order XIV, Rule 2 of CPC rejected – Issue of suit’s maintainability to be considered along with other issues at trial’s conclusion.
 

Arbitration – Contract Disputes – Payment for Construction Work – Appeal under Section 37 – Dispute over payment for clearing and grubbing (C&G) and earthwork in embankment below Original Ground Level (OGL) – Arbitral Tribunal awarded payment for embankment work below OGL – Held, payment justified as per contractual terms – Appeal against this issue dismissed [Paras 1-23]. 

Arbitration – Delay in Raising Dispute – Time-Barred Claims – Contract required dispute to be referred to Dispute Review Expert (DRE) within 14 days – Delay in approaching DRE due to its non-existence – Tribunal held delay justified – Held, delay acceptable as DRE was constituted later and appellant participated without objection – No grounds for interference [Paras 24-30]. 

Arbitration – Price Escalation – Application of Price Index – Tribunal applied uniform price index for withheld payments at final bill stage (IPC 78) – Held, consistent with contract – No error in application of price index – Appeal against this issue dismissed [Paras 31-35]. 

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Impugned orders of learned Single Judge upheld – Registry directed to return Bank Guarantee deposited by respondent. 

Criminal Law – Murder – Dying Declarations – Conviction based on multiple dying declarations – Deceased consistently stated that appellant poured kerosene on her, set her on fire, and threw her from the stairs – Conviction upheld – Dying declarations found credible and trustworthy [Paras 1-45]. 

Evidence Law – Dying Declaration – Section 32(1) of Indian Evidence Act – Declarations made to brother, father, cousin, police officer, and doctor – Consistency across multiple declarations – Declarations corroborated by forensic evidence and witness testimonies – Declarations made in conscious state [Paras 30-45]. 

Forensic Evidence – Corroboration – Presence of kerosene residues on clothes, hair, and scene of crime – Recovery of stove, plastic can with kerosene, burnt clothes, and hair clip from crime scene – Forensic evidence supported dying declarations [Para 44]. 

Decision:  Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence upheld – Appellant directed to surrender within one week to serve remaining sentence – Trial court record to be returned with judgment copy for compliance. 

Customary Law – Rights of Daughters – Plaintiffs, daughters of the deceased Prithi Singh, claimed rights to his ancestral property – Trial Court found in their favor, affirming they succeeded the estate over collaterals – Lower Appellate Court reversed, ruling defendants acquired ownership by adverse possession – High Court emphasized daughters' inheritance rights under customary law and Hindu Succession Act, rejecting exclusive male succession claims [Paras 9-13].

Adverse Possession – Pleading and Proof Requirements – Defendants failed to establish adverse possession, lacking specific pleading on when and how possession became hostile – High Court found no evidence of ouster or hostile possession against plaintiffs – Restored Trial Court's judgment in favor of plaintiffs [Paras 14-15].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Findings of lower Appellate Court on adverse possession reversed – Judgment and decree of Trial Court restored – Plaintiffs recognized as co-owners of the suit land.
 

Premature Release – Application of Government Policy – Petitioner sought premature release under the 1991 policy of the Punjab Government – Contention on inclusion of parole period in the calculation of actual imprisonment – State's policy changed in 2020 to exclude parole period from actual sentence – Court held the policy at the time of conviction governs premature release – Parole period must be included in actual imprisonment as per policy effective during conviction [Paras 6-8].

Policy Interpretation – Prospective vs. Retrospective Application – Government policy changes in 2020 cannot be applied retrospectively – Court emphasized fairness in applying policies as per legal position at the time of conviction unless a more beneficial regime is later provided [Paras 7-8].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Held – Petitioner entitled to consideration for premature release based on policy dated 08.07.1991 – State directed to process petitioner's release within two months – Parole period to be included in actual imprisonment calculation [Para 8].

Adverse Possession – Legal Requirements – Defendants claimed ownership by adverse possession – Courts found defendants failed to prove hostile, open, and continuous possession – Claim of adverse possession inherently acknowledges the title of another party – Supreme Court precedent emphasized inconsistency in claiming both ownership and adverse possession simultaneously [Paras 5-7].

Jurisdiction of Civil Courts – Tenancy Rights – First Appellate Court erred in finding defendants to be tenants, thus denying jurisdiction to Civil Court – Defendants had consistently claimed adverse possession, not tenancy – Civil Court jurisdiction upheld for possession claims where defendants deny title and assert adverse possession [Paras 8-12].

Denial of Title and Forfeiture of Tenancy – Denouncing plaintiff's title in written statements can result in forfeiture of tenancy rights – Civil Court jurisdiction affirmed based on precedents from higher judiciary – New claims or defenses not pleaded cannot be considered [Paras 9-12].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Held – Plaintiffs entitled to possession of the suit land as title holders – Defendants' adverse possession claims dismissed – Judgments of trial courts restored – Decree of possession granted to plaintiffs in both civil suits [Paras 13].

Income Tax – Assessment Order – Writ Petition challenging assessment order issued without proper notice to petitioner – Address discrepancy noted; notices returned undelivered – Petitioner claimed lack of opportunity to contest assessment due to incorrect address – Court found fault with petitioner for not updating address with Income Tax Department but recognized the necessity for petitioner to be heard – Assessment order set aside subject to payment of costs and re-assessment directed [Paras 1-6].

Procedure for Assessment – Importance of Proper Notice – Emphasized that taxpayers must update current addresses with tax authorities – Highlighted procedural lapse in serving notices and conducting assessments without taxpayer’s knowledge – Court mandated reasonable opportunity and personal hearing for petitioner during re-assessment [Paras 4-6].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed with Costs – Assessment order dated 10.01.2024 set aside on condition of petitioner paying Rs.15,000 as costs to Adyar Cancer Institute, Chennai – Respondent directed to provide portal access for petitioner to submit reply and conduct reassessment with opportunity for personal hearing via video conference within four months [Para 6-7].

Electricity Connection - Alternative Remedy - Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum: Petitioner sought court direction for a new electricity connection amidst pending civil suit for property possession and criminal writ for protection. High Court emphasized the statutory framework for consumer grievances under the Electricity Act, providing an effective, expeditious remedy through the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Ombudsman. It underscored that writ petitions should not bypass prescribed statutory remedies unless exceptions apply [Paras 1-17].

Civil Procedure - Application of Order II Rule 2 CPC: Court noted petitioner’s previous suit encompassed similar relief for electricity load restoration, thus Order II Rule 2 CPC barred repetitive litigation in alternative forums. Petitioner’s claim of a new cause of action was rejected as misleading, portraying an artificial distinction to evade statutory process [Paras 8-11].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed - Petitioner directed to seek remedy through statutory consumer grievance mechanisms. Court highlighted procedural integrity and necessity of exhausting statutory remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction [Paras 12-17].

Hindu Succession Act – Coparcenary Rights – Plaintiffs, daughters of the deceased Murugan, claimed coparcenary rights in the ancestral properties – Defendants contended that the properties were self-acquired by D1 – High Court held that all the suit properties are ancestral and plaintiffs are entitled to coparcenary rights by birth under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 – Trial Court’s findings on coparcenary status and superstructures reversed – [Paras 14-35].

Evidence Act – Additional Evidence – Plaintiffs filed petitions under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC to receive additional documents – High Court allowed the petitions, marking the documents as Ex-A.8 to Ex-A.11 – Documents were vital to decide the dispute [Paras 15-18].

Civil Procedure – Sale Deeds and GPA – Transactions pending suit – Certain sale deeds and GPA executed by D1 in favour of D2 and others during the pendency of the suit – High Court held that transactions were done to defeat plaintiffs’ rights – Transactions not protected under proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 [Paras 30-33].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – Judgment and decree of Trial Court modified – Preliminary decree granted to plaintiffs for 1/3 share each in ancestral properties – Suit dismissed in respect of certain properties due to prior valid sale deeds – CMP petitions allowed, additional documents received and marked [Paras 35].