Civil Law – Order XVIII CPC – Right to Begin – Plaintiffs filed memo stating they had no evidence at present and reserved right to lead rebuttal evidence – Trial Court accepted memo and called upon defendant to lead evidence – Held: Improper exercise of discretion – Under Order XVIII Rule 1 and 3 CPC, plaintiffs must lead evidence on all issues where burden lies on them – Rebuttal evidence can only be led where burden lies on defendant – Trial Court order allowing plaintiffs to skip primary evidence and proceed directly to rebuttal without legal basis [Paras 3-11, 14].

Order XVIII Rule 3 – Several Issues – Right to Reserve Evidence – When burden of proving certain issues lies on defendant, plaintiffs may reserve evidence in rebuttal – However, for all other issues where burden lies on plaintiffs, evidence must be led first – Trial Court’s interpretation incorrect – Plaintiffs cannot avoid leading evidence on their own issues under guise of reserving rebuttal evidence [Paras 9-11].

Judicial Precedent – Interpretation of Order XVIII – Bombay High Court’s decisions in Bhagirath Shankar Somani v. Rameshchandra Daulal Soni and Haran Bidi Suppliers v. V.M. and Co. followed – Held: Rule 1 of Order XVIII is enabling and cannot be used by court to compel defendant to lead evidence before plaintiff – Karnataka High Court agrees with Bombay view – Orissa High Court’s contrary view in Rama Krushna Mohanty not binding and distinguished [Paras 12-13].

Article 227 – Writ Jurisdiction – Trial Court committed jurisdictional error in misapplying procedural law – High Court under Article 227 has supervisory power to correct legal errors affecting fairness of trial – Writ Petition allowed to secure just and lawful trial procedure [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 10.11.2021 in O.S. No. 193/2019 set aside – Plaintiffs directed to lead evidence on all issues except issue no.2 – Plaintiffs permitted to lead rebuttal evidence only after defendant adduces evidence on issue no.2 – Trial Court directed to expedite trial considering pendency since 2019 [Paras 14].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Cause of Action – Agreement of Sale – Petitioner sought rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the agreement of sale stood terminated by notice dated 15.01.2021 – Respondent had not specifically sought declaration of termination notice as illegal – Held: Though termination was pleaded, petitioner accepted further sale consideration even after the deadline fixed under the agreement, thereby giving rise to triable issues – Suit cannot be rejected at threshold for lack of cause of action [Paras 13–15, 19–20].

Contract Law – Specific Performance – Time as Essence – Clause in agreement made time essence by fixing 01.10.2019 for payment of balance sale consideration – Respondent paid additional Rs.1.05 crores after deadline on 03.10.2019 and 10.10.2019 – Held: Petitioner’s conduct diluted clause regarding time being essence – Triable issue as to whether right to cancel was forfeited by conduct [Paras 18–19].

Contract Law – Termination of Agreement – Relief of Declaration – Failure to separately challenge termination notice – Held: Not fatal – Validity of termination is inherent in the prayer for specific performance – Issue of validity of termination to be decided at trial – Suit cannot be rejected merely for omission to seek declaratory relief [Para 20].

Civil Procedure – Trialable Issues – Full-Fledged Trial Required – Disputed facts surrounding termination, acceptance of payment, and readiness and willingness of plaintiff require adjudication after evidence – Rejection of plaint unwarranted at preliminary stage [Para 20].

Decision:

Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Order of trial court refusing to reject plaint upheld – Suit for specific performance to proceed to trial – No order as to costs [Paras 21–22].

Writ of Habeas Corpus - Preventive Detention – Non-consideration of Representation – Violation of Article 22(5) – Detention confirmed under Section 9(f) of the PIT NDPS Act – Petitioner contended that representation dated 08.02.2025 was not considered independently by State Government – Court found no mention of such consideration in confirmation order (Annexure-B) or related files – Held: Representation must be considered independently of Advisory Board opinion – Failure to do so violates constitutional mandate under Article 22(5) – Detention vitiated [Paras 11–16, 19]

Detention – Right to Representation to Central Government – Detenue not informed of right to make representation to Central Government under Section 12(1)(b) of the PIT NDPS Act – Held: Obligation exists under Article 22(5) to inform detenue of such right – Failure to communicate this vitiates the order – Supported by SC ruling in Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel v. Union of India [(1995) 4 SCC 51] [Paras 20–22]

Preventive Detention – Independent Application of Mind – Confirmation order (Annexure-B) merely reproduced draft order based on Advisory Board report – No independent examination of detenue’s representation found in file – Held: Confirmation must reflect independent reasoning by competent authority – Mechanistic approval insufficient – Quashed [Paras 15–16]

NDPS Offences – Habitual Offender Allegation – Detenue had 12 prior NDPS cases, several pending trial – Alleged to be involved in organized trafficking from Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh – Court held such allegations, though serious, do not override procedural safeguards under Constitution – Preventive detention must satisfy strict compliance with statutory and constitutional mandates [Paras 2–5, 23]

Decision – Detention order dated 27.12.2024 and confirmation order dated 20.03.2025 quashed – Writ petition allowed – Operative portion to be communicated to prison authorities immediately [Para 23]

Service Law – Seniority – Inter-Commissionerate Transfer (ICT) – Deputation followed by absorption – Impact on Seniority – Held: An ICT transfer is to be treated as a deputation until formally absorbed – Seniority is to be reckoned only from date of absorption in the new Commissionerate, not from date of deputation/joining – High Court upheld the CAT’s direction that transferred Inspectors are junior to promotees in the transferee Commissionerate – Circular No. 8/2011 and Rule 5(2) apply – Earlier position treating such transferred officers as seniors was contrary to rules – [Paras 5, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22]

Seniority – Direct Recruits vs Promotees vs Transferees – Rule Position – Inspectors who came on ICT and later absorbed cannot claim seniority over those promoted in the new cadre during the interim – High Court clarifies that ICT is not an open transfer but a deputation on request, governed by Rule 5(2) of the 2011 Circular – [Paras 12, 15, 18]

Absorption – Date of Absorption Crucial – Mere joining on ICT does not imply immediate absorption – Only formal absorption confers rights to seniority in the new unit – Seniority cannot be retrospectively counted from the date of initial joining – [Paras 10, 12, 18]

Final Decision: OPs Dismissed – Orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal affirmed – Petitioners not entitled to seniority over departmental promotees in the transferee Commissionerates – [Paras 20, 22]

Civil Law - Partition – Family Arrangement – Relinquishment of Share – Plaintiff claimed joint allotment in ancestral property along with her brothers under 1981 partition deed – Trial Court granted her 1/12th share – On appeal, High Court held that plaintiff and her mother had explicitly relinquished their share in favour of defendants 1 and 2 under Ex-B.34, the registered partition deed dated 25.09.1981 – Recitals, witness testimony (D.W.2), and conduct of parties including subsequent sale deeds corroborated relinquishment – Held: Plaintiff had relinquished her share and cannot claim co-ownership over suit properties – Trial Court erred in granting decree for partition [Paras 3.4, 10.2, 21–26, 34]

Documentary Evidence – Deficit Stamp Duty – Admissibility – Ex-B.34 marked in evidence without objection – Held: Under Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act, once a document is admitted in evidence without objection, its admissibility on stamp duty grounds cannot be questioned later – Reliance placed on Javer Chand vs Pukhraj Surana and Shyamal Kumar Roy vs Sushil Kumar Agarwal – Stamp duty deficiency not a ground to reject Ex-B.34 [Paras 30–33]

Joint Possession – Onus and Proof – Plaintiff relied on water tax and electricity bills in name of second defendant and claimed joint possession – High Court held that such payment, without ownership evidence, does not establish joint possession – Plaintiff or her husband could be permissive occupants – No evidence of co-ownership or separate allotment found – Held: Plaintiff failed to prove joint possession and suit valuation incorrect [Paras 36]

Limitation – Challenge to Registered Documents – Plaintiff did not challenge Ex-B.34 (1981), Ex-B.36 (1983), or Ex-B.3 (1986) within limitation period – Court held that claim barred by limitation under Articles 58 and 59 of Limitation Act – Plaintiff cannot seek partition in absence of challenge to earlier relinquishment [Paras 10.6, 34]

Decision – Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of Trial Court set aside – Suit for partition dismissed – No costs [Paras 37]

Maintenance – Disclosure of Income – Remand Ordered – Wife claimed past and future maintenance without properly disclosing her employment and income – Trial court awarded maintenance of ₹2,88,000 to wife and ₹1,44,000 to child with future monthly maintenance of ₹8,000 and ₹4,000 respectively – High Court noted suppression of employment and salary of ₹13,500/month from AWH College – Held: Orders granting maintenance to wife set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication by Family Court after permitting both parties to adduce evidence afresh [Paras 14–17, 19].

Dowry & Return of Gold Ornaments – Proof of Ownership and Custody – Wife claimed 200 sovereigns of gold – Court found she failed to prove full claim but accepted 60 sovereigns based on photographic evidence (Ext.A1) and gold shop estimate (Ext.A2) issued in her father’s name prior to marriage – Respondent's inconsistent claims and failure to produce bank records undermined his case – Held: Wife entitled to recover 60 sovereigns or their market value [Paras 7–12, 19].

Divorce – Cruelty – Validity of Decree – Trial court granted divorce to wife on grounds of cruelty and dismissed husband’s petition for restitution of conjugal rights – No appeal filed against this part – Held: Divorce decree stands unchallenged and final [Para 6].

Interim Maintenance – Continuation During Remand – Considering the wife’s low income and time elapsed, interim maintenance of ₹8,000/month directed to continue until final disposal – Amount already withdrawn from earlier deposit allowed to be retained by wife [Paras 18–19].

Decision:

Mat.Appeal No.1174/2017 partly allowed – Wife entitled to 60 sovereigns of gold or market value.

Mat.Appeal No.1215/2017 and R.P.(FC) No.518/2017 allowed – Orders relating to wife’s maintenance set aside – Case remanded to Family Court.

Mat.Appeal No.1173/2017 and R.P.(FC) No.608/2017 disposed of accordingly.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – Validity of Statutory Notice – Appellant alleged that respondent borrowed ₹2,00,000 and issued cheque dated 30.03.2007 – Cheque dishonoured on 03.04.2007 for insufficient funds – Statutory notice sent on 13.04.2007 returned on 18.04.2007 as “not claimed” – Trial Court dismissed complaint on ground that notice was incorrectly addressed – On appeal, High Court upheld acquittal holding that notice (Ex.P3) and postal cover (Ex.P5) contained material correction in respondent’s name, originally written as “Thangarajan” instead of “Thiyagarajan” – Evidence of Postman (D.W.1) and Postal Officer (D.W.2) corroborated the error – Held: Mandatory requirement of proper service under Section 138(b) N.I. Act not complied with – Acquittal justified [Paras 3–6]

Presumption under Section 139 – Cheque not denied – Respondent claimed it was given as security during financial dealings between fathers of both parties – High Court held that presumption under Section 139 does not arise automatically where statutory notice was not properly served – Burden of proving service not discharged by complainant – No interference warranted with trial court's finding [Paras 4–5]

Evidence – Postal Records and Witness Testimony – Postal receipt (Ex.P4) and returned cover (Ex.P5) bore serial no. 5558 – D.W.1 (Postman) and D.W.2 (Postal Officer) confirmed letter was originally addressed to “Thangarajan” – Correction made later – Endorsements on postal cover supported this – Court accepted their testimonies and postal records (Ex.D1 & Ex.D2) – Held: Trial court rightly found that notice not delivered due to incorrect addressing [Paras 3–6]

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode in C.C. No. 158 of 2011 upheld – No grounds to interfere with findings [Para 7]

Motor Accident Claim – Insurance Liability – Validity of Cover Note – Insurer challenged award on ground that no policy was issued pursuant to the cover note – Tribunal held that insurer failed to cancel the cover note or notify the authority as required under Section 147(5) – Held: A cover note has the same legal effect as a policy unless cancelled – Insurer liable to pay compensation [Paras 10-12.5, 23-24]

Rash and Negligent Driving – Factual Finding – Auto Rickshaw ran over claimant’s leg after she fell from vehicle due to rash driving – Tribunal found accident was caused by rash and negligent driving – No challenge to this finding in appeal – Held: Tribunal’s conclusion on negligence remains unassailed and binding [Paras 13, 13.1]

Quantum of Compensation – Routine Injury – Compensation of ₹1,10,600 awarded under heads of medical expenses, incidental costs, and pain and suffering – Tribunal rightly did not award under other heads due to lack of proof of hospitalization or income loss – Held: Assessment reasonable and does not warrant interference [Paras 16, 16.1, 17-19]

Interest on Compensation – Rate Enhanced – Tribunal awarded interest @6% p.a. from date of cross-examination – Court enhanced interest rate to 9% per annum in view of settled precedents and long pendency of claim – Held: Enhanced interest justified [Paras 20-21]

Burden of Proof – Insurance Policy – Insurer claimed no policy issued by Ahmedabad Division – However, failed to deny issuance of cover note or produce evidence of its cancellation – Tribunal rightly rejected insurer’s plea – Held: Burden was on insurer to disprove liability once cover note admitted and not cancelled [Paras 10-12.5, 22.2]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Compensation of ₹1,10,600 upheld – Rate of interest modified from 6% to 9% per annum – Appellant directed to deposit amount within 30 days – No costs awarded.

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Prima Facie Case – Allegation of ₹10 lakh bribe involving public servant – Cash recovered from Petitioner’s vehicle – Petitioner not named in FIR but added during investigation – Held: FIR discloses cognizable offence and prima facie material exists – Investigation at nascent stage – No grounds for quashing at this stage [Paras 1, 8-9, 15-17]

Prevention of Corruption Act – Role of Private Individual – Petitioner argued as being outside scope of PC Act as he is not a public servant – Court held: PC Act extends to private persons who abet, conspire or facilitate corruption involving public servants – Involvement of Petitioner cannot be ruled out at this stage [Paras 6(j), 14-15]

Criminal Procedure – Stage of Investigation – Court reiterated that investigation is executive function – Judicial interference limited unless FIR is patently illegal or lacks ingredients of offence – Presence of Rs.10 lakh cash in Petitioner’s vehicle sufficient to continue probe – Court refuses to halt investigation [Paras 11-13, 15-16]

Evidence – Recovery of Bribe Money – Petitioner claimed absence of delivery details and improper Memo procedure – Court observed that ₹10 lakh recovered from Petitioner’s car and FIR discloses sequence of events justifying investigation – Alleged irregularities can be examined after charge-sheet or during trial [Paras 6(g)-(h), 15-16]

Constitution – Article 20(3) – Right Against Self-Incrimination – Demand for mobile phone passwords by CBI – Petitioner claimed violation – Court noted CBI’s position that password is a means of access and not testimonial evidence – Issue kept open for future examination [Paras 6(m), 7(h)]

Decision: CRLMC petitions dismissed – FIR and investigation not quashed – Liberty granted to petitioners to approach court after filing of final report or charge-sheet, if aggrieved – No interference warranted at current stage [Paras 17]