Locus Standi – Plaintiffs' Lack of Standing – Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act – Plaintiffs, grandchildren of the deceased Tej Pratap Singh, lacked locus standi to challenge his Will as they did not fall within the Class-I legal heirs during the lifetime of their mother, Ravinder Kaur, who was one of the legal heirs – The succession rights crystallized upon Tej Pratap Singh’s death, and plaintiffs cannot claim a higher right than their mother – Plaintiffs have no right to challenge transactions or Wills after 43 years since their mother had never challenged the same during her lifetime [Paras 35-37].

Bar of Limitation – Challenge After 43 Years – Suit Time-Barred – The suit challenging the Wills and numerous transactions, including mutations and transfers, dating back to 1971-2005, was found to be time-barred – The court held that clever drafting to create an illusion of a cause of action does not avoid the statute of limitations – Plaintiffs' contention that they only became aware of these transactions after the death of their mother was rejected [Paras 50-53].

Non-Joinder of Necessary Parties – Transactions Challenged Without Involving Transferees – Plaintiffs failed to implead the necessary parties, including transferees and vendees in the numerous transactions they sought to challenge – The court held that no effective decree could be passed in the absence of these necessary parties, rendering the suit defective and unsustainable [Paras 59-62].

Court Fee – Plaintiffs Required to Pay Ad Valorem Court Fee – Plaintiffs sought declaration of transactions as null and void while also claiming joint possession – Since the properties had already been transferred to third parties, plaintiffs were required to pay ad valorem court fee on the challenged transactions – Plaintiffs could not avoid this requirement by merely claiming joint possession [Paras 63-71].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Plaint rejected under Order VII Rule 11 for lack of locus standi, bar of limitation, non-joinder of necessary parties, and failure to pay the requisite ad valorem court fee [Paras 73-74].
 

Anticipatory Bail - Offenses under Sections 120B, 406, 420 IPC and Trade Marks Act - Custodial Interrogation Not Required - The accused were charged with conspiracy, cheating, and breach of trust involving the development and delivery of software. The court found no necessity for custodial interrogation, considering that the first accused was already granted anticipatory bail. Petitioners were granted bail on the condition of cooperating with the investigation [Paras 5-8].

Conditions for Bail - Cooperation with Investigation Mandated - The court imposed conditions requiring the petitioners to surrender for interrogation and cooperate with the investigation, including deemed custody for recovery purposes. Petitioners are to appear before the Investigating Officer as required and are prohibited from contacting witnesses or leaving India without court permission [Paras 9-10].

Reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) – Eligibility for General Category – The petitioners argued that candidates from the EWS category who scored higher than the last candidate in the General Category should be considered for unreserved seats – Held: As per Article 16(6) of the Constitution, EWS reservation is distinct, and candidates selected under this category should not automatically be counted towards general seats – The Court ruled that the criteria outlined in the notification dated 30.10.2020 were correctly applied, requiring EWS candidates to fill EWS-designated seats, even if their scores exceeded those of General Category candidates [Paras 34-36, 39].

Principle of Reservation in EWS – Prospective Application of Policy Changes – Petitioners contended that the instructions of 30.10.2020 could not retroactively apply to the recruitment process initiated by Advertisement No. 2 dated 30.01.2020 – Held: The Court held that the State’s policy on EWS reservation applied prospectively and could be enforced in this instance, as it aligns with the broader intent to support EWS candidates through targeted reservation in designated seats [Paras 37-38].

Legal Precedent – Adjustment against Unreserved Vacancies – The Court upheld the principle that EWS candidates can only compete in the General Category if they are selected solely on merit, independent of any reservation – This principle aligns with Government directives that EWS candidates are not to be counted towards unreserved vacancies if they benefit from the EWS quota [Para 42].

Final Decision – Petitions Dismissed – The Court dismissed the writ petitions, finding that the recruitment process complied with constitutional provisions and government notifications on EWS reservation – The petitioners' request to be considered under the General Category based on higher scores was denied, affirming the separation of EWS and General Category lists in merit-based recruitment [Paras 41, 42].
 

Family Law – Maintenance for Children – Father's Obligation – Petitioner contested the Family Court’s order awarding monthly maintenance to his two daughters, arguing inability to pay and asserting that the court did not allow him sufficient opportunity to submit objections – Court held that as the daughters’ legal guardian, the father is obligated to provide for their maintenance and educational expenses, especially given that one daughter is a minor and the other, a non-earning adult – Held: Order upheld; father’s duty includes supporting daughters until marriage or self-sufficiency [Paras 8-12].

Procedural Fairness – Opportunity to Present Objections – Petitioner alleged lack of opportunity to file objections in the Family Court – Court found no procedural error, noting that sufficient time was provided to the petitioner, who failed to submit the required documents – Held: No violation of due process; Family Court’s order sustained [Paras 14-16].

Decision:

The revision petition is dismissed. The Family Court’s order is upheld, directing the petitioner to pay ₹6,000 per month to each daughter, plus ₹1,04,000 for educational expenses and ₹5,000 for litigation costs.

Administrative Law – Suspension of Contractor’s Registration – Opportunity of Hearing Required – The petitioner challenged the suspension of his contractor registration with the MPPWD for a period of two years, arguing that no opportunity of hearing was provided before the suspension – Held: The suspension of registration for non-completion of work requires a separate show-cause notice and an opportunity of hearing – The impugned order of suspension is unsustainable in law as no such opportunity was granted – Petition allowed, suspension order quashed [Paras 8-12].

Blacklisting or Suspension – Procedural Safeguards – Guidelines – The court referred to the Circular dated 24/03/2015 of the MPPWD and observed that before blacklisting or suspending a contractor’s registration, the competent authority must issue a show-cause notice and consider the seriousness of the alleged conduct – The procedural safeguards were not adhered to in the present case, rendering the suspension order void [Paras 9-12].

Debarment and Blacklisting – Harm to Public Interest and Contractor’s Rights – The court emphasized that blacklisting or suspension should only be invoked in serious cases affecting public interest and should not be readily imposed for ordinary breaches of contract where there is a bona fide dispute – Citing The Blue Dreamz Advertising Pvt. Ltd. v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation (2024), the court highlighted the severe consequences of debarment on a contractor’s ability to engage in future contracts [Paras 10-11].

Decision: The writ petition is allowed – The suspension order dated 03/02/2022 is quashed – No order as to costs [Paras 12-13].

Civil Procedure – Executability of Decree – Pecuniary Jurisdiction – The petitioner challenged the execution of an ex-parte decree passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, arguing that the suit value of ₹9,00,000 exceeded the court's pecuniary jurisdiction of ₹5,00,000, rendering the decree null and void – Held: A decree passed by a court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction is not inherently void but voidable, and objections must be raised at the earliest opportunity in the trial or appellate court – The objection cannot be raised in execution proceedings [Paras 13-14].

Pecuniary Jurisdiction – Waiver and Estoppel – The court noted that no objection to pecuniary jurisdiction was raised by the judgment debtor during the trial or in appeal, despite the transfer of the case from the Senior Division to the Junior Division – Failure to raise such an objection earlier precludes it from being raised during execution – The decree is valid and executable as no failure of justice occurred [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Petition dismissed – The trial court’s decision to proceed with execution is upheld, as the objection to pecuniary jurisdiction is not permissible in execution proceedings [Para 15].

Land Revenue – Mutation Proceedings – Jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities – The petition challenged the mutation of respondents' names in revenue records based on a will purportedly executed by Late Smt. Pyari Bai – Held: Revenue authorities lack the jurisdiction to adjudicate the genuineness of wills in mutation proceedings – Mutation orders based on unverified wills must be set aside, and such disputes must be resolved through civil court proceedings – Order of SDO restoring the petitioner’s name upheld, mutation by Tehsildar and Additional Commissioner quashed [Paras 1-3, 10, 17].

Wills – Requirement of Proof – Sections 67 and 68 of the Indian Evidence Act – The will must be proved in a court of law before it can be relied upon in mutation proceedings – The genuineness of a will, especially when challenged, cannot be decided summarily by revenue authorities but must be adjudicated through civil litigation – Will execution must be proven through attesting witnesses, and suspicious circumstances must be satisfactorily addressed by the propounder [Paras 10-17].

Civil Law – Adjudication of Title – Competence of Civil Courts – The court reiterated that issues concerning title, including those based on wills, must be resolved by competent civil courts, not by revenue authorities – Revenue entries serve only fiscal purposes and do not confer or extinguish title – The petitioners were advised to seek remedy by filing a civil suit for declaration of title if desired [Paras 6, 10-17].

Decision: The petition is allowed – The orders of the Tehsildar and Additional Commissioner are quashed – The order of the SDO is restored, and the petitioner’s name is reinstated in the revenue records – Respondents are granted liberty to file a civil suit for declaration of title, if desired – The mutation entry will be subject to the outcome of the civil litigation [Paras 18].

Condonation of Delay – Inordinate Delay – Administrative Lapses – The State sought condonation of a delay of 1679 days (4 years and 7 months) in filing a review petition – Court held: The State's reasons, including reliance on administrative procedures, COVID-19 pandemic, and rainfall in Kolhapur, were insufficient to explain the inordinate delay – Mere procedural formalities and bureaucratic inertia do not constitute "sufficient cause" under the law of limitation [Paras 6-9].

Review Petition – Change in Law – Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC – The primary ground for review was the subsequent overruling of Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Solanki by Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal – Court held: Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 bars review on the basis of a subsequent change in law – The review petition was therefore not maintainable even if the delay were condoned [Paras 11-14].

Finality of Proceedings – Judicial Efficiency – The Court emphasized that allowing review petitions based on changes in legal interpretation would undermine the finality of judgments and open a floodgate of litigation, disturbing settled rights – The principle of finality of judgments was upheld [Paras 17-18].

Decision – Review petition and all associated interim applications dismissed – No order as to costs [Para 19].
 

Election Law – Improper Rejection of Nomination Papers – Judicial Review Barred – Petitioners sought to challenge the rejection of nomination papers for the Sarpanch elections in Punjab, alleging collusion between the Returning Officer and other candidates – Petitioners requested a stay on the election process – The State opposed the petitions, citing Section 89 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994, which requires election disputes, including improper rejection of nomination papers, to be resolved by an Election Tribunal – Article 243-O of the Constitution bars courts from interfering in the election process except by way of an election petition after results are declared [Paras 4-7, 16-18].

Election Petition Remedy – Alternative to Writ Jurisdiction – Court held that challenges to election matters, including improper rejection of nominations, must be raised through an election petition after the conclusion of the election – Relief sought by the petitioners was deemed premature as the election process had already commenced – Petitioners were directed to file an election petition before the Election Tribunal after the declaration of results [Paras 17-18, 32].

Judicial Precedents – Bar on Election Interference – Court referred to N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer (1952 SCC Online SC 3) and Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978 1 SCC 405), reiterating that election disputes must be resolved through election petitions post-results – The Court emphasized that judicial intervention in ongoing elections could undermine the electoral process, as held in West Bengal State Election Commission v. CPI(M) (2018 18 SCC 141) [Paras 10-16, 23-24].

Rejection of Interim Relief – Stay on Election Process Denied – Petitioners sought interim relief to stay the election process – Court rejected this request, reiterating that any grievances regarding the election should be addressed through an election petition after the election’s conclusion – The Court vacated the interim relief granted by the Co-ordinate Bench [Paras 12, 22, 42].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – The Court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the rejection of nomination papers cannot be challenged through writ jurisdiction while the election process is ongoing – Petitioners advised to file election petitions to resolve their disputes after the results are declared [Paras 42-43].