Civil Law - Motor Accident Claims - Constitution of India - Article 227 - Issuance of Subpoena to Investigating Officer - Insurance Company filed an application seeking to summon the Investigating Officer of Bagalur Police Station to provide oral evidence and produce vehicle records of a lorry involved in an accident - Tribunal dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner could obtain certified copies from the concerned authorities - Petitioner contended that despite best efforts they were unable to apply for certified copies as the insured and the driver were non-traceable and full particulars were unavailable - High Court observed that no prejudice would be caused to any party if the application for issuance of subpoena is allowed especially when the vehicle and insured are not traceable - Held - The impugned order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed - [Paras 1-7].

Civil Law - Procedure - Constitution of India - Article 227 - Time-bound disposal of claim petition - Respondents/claimants submitted that the MCOP case was pending since 2024 due to the pendency of the miscellaneous application and the current revision petition - High Court took note of the interest of the claimants and issued directions for the speedy disposal of the main claim - Held - Tribunal directed to dispose of MCOP No. 3191 of 2024 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order - [Paras 6-7].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 25.09.2025 in MP No. 1 of 2025 set aside – Tribunal directed to issue summons to the Investigating Officer of Bagalur Police Station and dispose of the main claim petition within six months.

Writ Law - Compassionate Appointment - U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order 2016 - Clause 2(p) - Fair Price Shop Dealer - Petitioner daughter of deceased dealer applied for dealership on compassionate grounds claiming she resided with her father and fulfilled eligibility conditions - Sub-Divisional Magistrate rejected application on 21.01.2026 solely on the ground that a married daughter does not fall within the definition of family under the 2016 Control Order and Government Order No. 6 of 2019 - Petitioner challenged the order as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 - High Court noted that the term adult children in Clause 2(p) encompasses both sons and daughters regardless of marital status - Court followed Supreme Court precedent in Kulsum Nisha v. State of U.P. which held that married daughters cannot be excluded from compassionate appointment - Held - The exclusion of a married daughter who establishes dependency and satisfies other eligibility conditions is unconstitutional - Impugned order set aside - Matter remitted for fresh decision within two months - [Paras 1-16].

Constitutional Law - Right to Equality - Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 15 - Gender-based Discrimination - State excluded married daughters from the definition of family while including unmarried or widowed daughters - High Court held that equality is antithetic to arbitrariness - Reasonable classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia having a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved - Purposive interpretation is required for welfare measures rather than a literal interpretation that leads to anomalous results - Held - Exclusion of a married daughter based on a gender-based stereotype is constitutionally impermissible and frustrates the purpose of providing financial relief to dependent family members - [Paras 11-14].

Writ Law - Definition of Family - U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order 2016 - Clause 2(p) - The expression daughter in the Control Order must be read to include a married daughter provided she establishes dependency on the deceased dealer and satisfies requirements of local residence and educational qualifications - A blanket exclusion based on the presumption that a married daughter cannot be a dependent is unjustified and factually untenable - Held - Married daughter is entitled to apply for appointment after the death of her parent subject to fulfillment of prescribed eligibility criteria - [Paras 14-16].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned order dated 21.01.2026 set aside – Matter remitted to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Raniganj, Pratapgarh to pass a fresh order in light of the Court's observations within two months.

Civil Law - Setting aside ex-parte proceedings - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order IX Rule 7 - Petitioner-defendant challenged orders of the Trial Court dated 22.01.2026 which dismissed her applications to set aside previous ex-parte orders dated 27.03.2018 and 13.06.2018 - The Trial Court had closed the evidence of DW1 and subsequently 'eschewed' the same due to non-appearance - Petitioner explained a seven-year delay citing old age complications including respiratory arrest in 2018 - pulmonary issues in 2024 - and a diagnosis of breast cancer - Petitioner also contended that her erstwhile counsel reported 'no instructions' without notice to her - Trial Court rejected the applications for failing to show 'sufficient cause' for the long delay - High Court held that Order IX Rule 7 requires only 'good cause' and not the higher threshold of 'sufficient cause' which is reserved for Order IX Rule 13 post-decree applications - Held - The Trial Court's application of a hyper-technical lens and a post-decree benchmark to a pre-decree proceeding was erroneous - Procedural equity and natural justice require that no party be condemned unheard - Impugned orders set aside - [Paras 1-42].

Civil Law - Interpretation of Eschew - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 151 - Trial Court's docket order stated that evidence of DW1 is 'eschewed' and defense evidence closed - High Court observed that the word 'eschew' is foreign to the text of the CPC 1908 - Clarified that while evidence-in-chief can be eschewed under Section 138 of the Evidence Act if a witness fails to submit to cross-examination - it was inappropriate here as no sworn affidavit of DW1 was even on record - Held - An erroneous order striking off or eschewing incomplete evidence constitutes a procedural error rectifiable under the inherent powers of the Court to prevent miscarriage of justice - [Paras 23-26].

Civil Law - Good Cause vs Sufficient Cause - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order IX Rule 7 and Order IX Rule 13 - Distinction in legal standards - Order IX Rule 7 governs situations where a defendant appears at an adjourned hearing and assigns 'good cause' for previous non-appearance - Order IX Rule 13 governs the setting aside of an ex-parte decree upon showing 'sufficient cause' - Held - The standards are distinct - Order IX Rule 7 cannot be interpreted restrictively to preclude a defendant from presenting evidence or to force irreversible ex-parte proceedings - Unless the defendant can show good cause they must accept all that has gone before but are entitled to proceed from the stage they appear - [Paras 21-33].

Civil Law - Limitation for applications - Limitation Act 1963 - Article 137 - Applicability to Order IX Rule 7 CPC - High Court clarified that Article 137 which prescribes a three-year period for applications not otherwise provided for is not strictly applicable to the procedure under Order IX Rule 7 - Order IX Rule 7 does not contemplate the filing of a formal application in the same sense as Order IX Rule 13 - Held - The provision simply lays down a procedure for appearance on an adjourned date and showing cause for previous absence - [Para 37].

Decision: Petitions allowed – Impugned orders dated 22.01.2026 are set aside – Petitioner granted liberty to place the order before the Trial Court by 01.07.2026 to lead evidence – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law - Quashing of Proceedings - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 528 - Civil dispute disguised as criminal - Petitioners challenged proceedings in C.C. No. 186 of 2025 originating from partnership disputes over M/s. Sri Raghavendra Rice Mill - De facto complainant alleged failure to restore operational control and demolition of machinery - Investigation revealed demolition was performed by Gram Panchayat for road widening - Charge sheet was confined to Sections 420 406 and 341 IPC - High Court noted long-standing civil and arbitral litigation between partners since 2017 including arbitration and execution petitions - Held - Dispute emanates from partnership relationship and is essentially civil in nature - Criminal process cannot be used for resolution of predominantly civil disagreements - Continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process - Petition allowed - [Paras 1-39].

Criminal Law - Cheating - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 420 - Inception of fraudulent intent - Partnership commenced in 1990 and functioned for decades before disputes arose regarding alternate operation arrangement - Held - Dishonest intention must exist at the inception of the transaction and not arise subsequently on account of a dispute - Mere breach of contractual obligations cannot be elevated to cheating without evidence of initial fraudulent design - Material on record did not disclose any inducement by deception at the start of the partnership - [Paras 23-27].

Criminal Law - Criminal Breach of Trust - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 405 and 406 - Entrustment between partners - Allegations concerned management and disposal of partnership assets - Held - Rice mill and associated assets constituted partnership property in which both partners claimed proprietary rights - Co-owner cannot be said to have entrusted partnership property to another co-owner in the manner contemplated under Section 405 IPC - Foundational requirement of entrustment was absent in a partnership context where property is jointly held - [Paras 28-31].

Criminal Law - Wrongful Restraint - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 341 - Relationship to civil dispute - Allegation of preventing entry into mill premises based on statements of tenants - Held - Claim to enter was founded upon asserted entitlement as a partner while petitioner claimed a competing right - Allegation cannot be divorced from the underlying dispute relating to possession and management of partnership property - Dispute was ancillary to the principal partnership contest and did not disclose a separate criminal offence - [Paras 32-33].

Criminal Law - Abuse of Process - Subsequent Complaint - Effect of earlier closure - Police had previously closed a similar complaint involving the same allegations as being civil in nature - Assistant Public Prosecutor also opined the dispute was civil - Held - While earlier closure is not an absolute bar to a fresh complaint it is a significant circumstance in determining if the criminal process is being invoked as an extension of a civil contest - Filing fresh private complaint on same facts after failing to challenge previous closure constitutes forum shopping and abuse of process - [Paras 34-36].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Proceedings in C.C. No. 186 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court at Amangal quashed.

Civil Law - Property Dispute - Encroachment - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 100 - Mandatory Injunction - Plaintiff M.A. Rajaiah filed O.S. No. 92/1995 and O.S. No. 15/1996 for declaration of title and mandatory injunction against defendant Vishnupadachar alleging encroachment of a narrow lane (oni) measuring 2 feet by 40 feet and construction of windows and sunshades (chajja) protruding into plaintiff's property - Trial Court dismissed both suits after considering Commissioner report marked as Exhibit C-1 which found no encroachment - First Appellate Court in R.A. No. 32/2007 and R.A. No. 26/2002 reversed the findings - It declared plaintiff's title but refused mandatory injunction for wall demolition in one suit while granting mandatory injunction for removal of windows in the other - High Court meticulously perused the evidence and the Commissioner report - Found that plaintiff suppressed the existence of a gutter and a petty shop within his own measurements which accounted for the discrepancy in his sale deed - Categorical finding recorded that defendant had not encroached upon the lane - Evidence suggested windows existed in the previous structure before reconstruction - Held - First Appellate Court was justified in refusing mandatory injunction where encroachment was not proved but erred in ordering the closure of windows and removal of sunshades as those were within defendant's property boundaries - RSA No. 198/2010 and RSA No. 339/2010 dismissed - RSA No. 337/2010 allowed - [Paras 1-180].

Evidence Law - Court Commissioner Report - Reliability - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XXVI Rule 9 - Plaintiff challenged the validity of Commissioner report alleging it was tainted by proximity between Commissioner and defendant's counsel - High Court noted that Commissioner was cross-examined in detail - Commissioner followed Court instructions and spot inspection was conducted in presence of parties - Plaintiff failed to produce relevant title deeds to the Commissioner despite being duty-bound to establish encroachment - Held - Commissioner report finding no encroachment was credible and correctly relied upon by the Trial Court - [Paras 146-155].

Civil Law - Mandatory Injunction - Relief where encroachment is not proved - Principles of Equity - Plaintiff sought mandatory injunction for removal of structures - Courts found no physical encroachment into the plaintiff's land or the disputed lane - Discrepancy in measurements arose from internal features of plaintiff's own property - Held - Rejection of mandatory injunction is just and proper when the core allegation of encroachment remains unproven - First Appellate Court's direction to remove sunshades and close windows set aside as it lacked logical basis given the finding of no encroachment - [Paras 167-178].

Decision: RSA No. 198/2010 and RSA No. 339/2010 are dismissed – RSA No. 337/2010 is allowed – Judgment of the First Appellate Court in R.A. No. 26/2002 regarding mandatory injunction is set aside – No order as to costs.

Civil Law - Recall of Order - seeking recall of orders dated 25.04.2025 which had set aside lower court decisions restoring suits - Opposite Party No. 1 (Deity) claimed non-participation as counsel’s name was missing from the cause list on the date of disposal - Court noted deity is a perpetual minor and justice requires its participation in proceedings - Previous orders passed without hearing the Opposite Party were found liable for recall to facilitate a decision on merit - Held - IAs allowed and orders dated 25.04.2025 recalled - [Paras 1-5].

Civil Law - Setting aside Ex-parte Decree - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 9 Rule 13 - Limitation Act 1963 - Section 5 - Condonation of Delay - Suits for declaration of title based on adverse possession against deity were decreed ex-parte - Restoration sought after delay of nearly 17 years - Trial court allowed restoration which was upheld in revision - Petitioners contended delay was not sufficiently explained - High Court observed that while limitation laws apply to deities as juristic persons a liberal and pragmatic approach to sufficient cause is required - Courts must ensure substantial justice prevails over technicalities especially when deity property is at stake - Held - Previous disposal of CMPs recalled and Revisions restored for fresh hearing before the District Judge - [Paras 6-13].

Civil Law - Status of Deity - Perpetual Minor - Adverse Possession - Maintainability of Suit - High Court examined whether adverse possession can be claimed against property owned by a deity - Observed that a deity is a perpetual minor dependent on Marfatdars or Sebayats and its property must be preserved from unlawful disposals - Although procedural laws of limitation are not bypassed by the perpetual minor doctrine a deity’s right to property is not easily extinguished - Finding of sufficient cause for non-appearance depends on facts such as lack of notice or knowledge of the decree - Held - Lower court must reconsider if Opposite Party No. 1 was diligent and if lack of notice in 1997 justified the delay in filing restoration applications in 2016 - [Paras 10-15].

Decision: IAs allowed – Orders dated 25.04.2025 in CMPs recalled – Civil Revision Nos. 08 and 02 of 2023 restored for rehearing and fresh decision by District Judge Kalahandi within four months.

Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 - Advocate implicated in serious criminal offences including attempt to murder and conspiracy - Allegations in FIR divided into three parts including a threat issued at District Court premises at 10:00 AM - Applicant raised plea of alibi and requested collection of CCTV footage - High Court observed that CCTV footage collected by Investigating Agency falsified the claim of the complainant regarding the applicant's presence at the Court premises - Prosecution argued that CDR showed contact with co-accused and tower location was in the area of incident - Court held that being an advocate the applicant's contact with a client cannot be brushed aside as conspiracy - Held - When material of sterling and impeccable quality negates allegations the High Court is justified in exercising inherent powers to prevent abuse of process - FIR quashed - [Paras 1-9].

Evidence Law - Confession of Co-accused - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Sections 25 and 30 - Admissibility of statements made to police - Prosecution relied on statements of co-accused to establish criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC - Court referred to Supreme Court precedents holding police statements in the form of confession as per se inadmissible - Provisions of Section 30 are of no use where statements are rendered inadmissible by Section 25 - Held - Confessional statement of co-accused to police cannot be used to implicate another co-accused and lacks corroborative value - [Paras 6.1-6.4].

Decision: Application allowed – FIR being C.R.No.I – 281 of 2019 registered with Rander Police Station, Surat quashed and set aside qua the applicant along with all consequential proceedings.

Writ Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Delay in Conclusion - Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 21 - State challenged Single Judge order quashing enquiry against respondent-retired Inspector of Police - Charges of corruption and harassment framed in 2012 - Enquiry delayed due to administrative transfers respondent non-cooperation and interceding criminal trials leading to dismissals and subsequent reinstatements after acquittal - Single Judge quashed proceedings relying on P.V. Mahadevan case and G.O.Ms.No.679 citing failure to conclude enquiry within six months - Division Bench observed that P.V. Mahadevan dealt with delay in initiation of proceedings whereas present case involved delay in conclusion - Held - Reliance on P.V. Mahadevan was misplaced - Delay not solely attributable to appellants and respondent conduct contributed to time lapse - Single Judge order set aside - [Paras 1-15].

Writ Law - Administrative Law - Mandatory vs Directory Provisions - G.O.Ms.No.679 dated 01.11.2008 - Disciplinary Enquiry Timeline - Court interpreted the six-month timeline for concluding disciplinary proceedings under G.O.Ms.No.679 - Held - Such timelines are directory and not mandatory - Interdicting proceedings solely on delay would permit dilatory tactics and frustrate the object of departmental action - Judicial review should not generally quash enquiries on delay grounds without balancing the gravity of charges and interest of clean administration - [Paras 18-19].

Writ Law - Police Service - Integrity and Discipline - Ratio Decidendi - Disciplinary enquiries aim to maintain service discipline and efficiency - Police department commands high standards of honesty - Grave allegations of corruption cannot be ignored due to procedural delays - Held - Court directed completion of the enquiry within three months with a mandate for respondent cooperation - Failure to complete within stipulated time would lead to automatic termination - [Paras 17-21].

Decision: Writ Appeal allowed – Order of the Single Judge set aside – Department directed to complete the disciplinary proceedings within three months – Failure to do so will result in automatic termination.

Criminal Law - Extension of Remand - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Section 36A(4) - Independent Application of Mind by Public Prosecutor - Petitioner challenged order dated 05.05.2026 passed by X Additional District and Sessions Judge Anakapalli extending remand beyond 180 days - High Court found Public Prosecutor failed to file a valid report indicating independent satisfaction with investigation progress - Prosecution merely filed an application without disclosing consideration of investigation material or satisfaction with progress - Trial Court failed to assign special reasons for continued detention beyond 180 days and failed to inform the accused of the extension application - Held - Statutory requirement of a Public Prosecutor report is a vital safeguard for liberty and not a mere formality - Absence of such report or failure to put accused on notice renders the extension order vulnerable - Impugned order set aside and petitioner enlarged on bail with conditions - [Paras 1-10].

Criminal Law - Role of Public Prosecutor - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Section 36A(4) - Statutory Duties - Public Prosecutor is an independent statutory authority and not a part of the investigating agency - Prosecutor is not a post office or forwarding agency for the investigating officer - Report for extension must disclose on its face the application of mind to investigation progress and specific reasons for further detention - Application of mind must be demonstrated through a formal report rather than mere reproduction of the investigating officer request - Held - Failure to provide an appropriate report results in an indefeasible right for the accused to be released on default bail - [Paras 3-6].

Decision: Revision Case allowed – Order dated 05.05.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.56 of 2026 set aside – Petitioner/Accused No.1 enlarged on bail subject to executing a bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties and specific conditions including weekly appearance before the SHO and surrender of passport.