Property Dispute Among Brothers – Challenge to the rejection of plaint – Petitioner Arun Fotedar challenges the order of the Civil Judge, which dismissed his application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint filed by respondent Dr. Jitender Fotedar concerning the ownership and funding of the construction of family-owned properties – Trial court order upheld by High Court, finding no merit in the petitioner’s arguments – All legal issues to be adjudicated during the trial – Revision petition dismissed [Paras 1-14].

Cause of Action & Limitation – Argument on limitation rejected – Plaintiff claimed cause of action arose upon learning of a transfer deed against his interests, discovered in 2020, well within the limitation period – Suit involves questions of oral promises and contributions acknowledged by defendant No.2 (another brother), creating a continuing cause of action [Para 16].

Value and Stamping of Suit – Suit properly valued and stamped – High Court confirmed that the plaintiff, being in joint possession as co-owner and disputing a transfer deed allegedly executed without his consent, rightly paid fixed court fees under applicable rules [Para 17].

Civil Procedure Code – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11 – Limitation Act – Application for Rejection of Plaint – Civil Revision Petition against Trial Court’s order dismissing application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Suit filed by mother against daughters and son seeking cancellation of gift deed, partition deed, and sale deeds – Plaintiff executed gift deed out of love and affection, without allegations of fraud or coercion – Suit filed 15 years after execution of gift deed – Held, suit barred by limitation – Order VII Rule 11 application allowed – Trial Court’s order set aside – Civil Revision Petition allowed. [Paras 1-19]

Limitation Act – Barred Claims – Analysis – Held – Plaintiff’s suit to challenge gift deed, partition deed, and sale deeds filed beyond prescribed limitation period – Plaintiff admitted execution of gift deed out of love and affection without alleging fraud or coercion – Suit filed 15 years after gift deed execution barred by limitation – Trial Court’s reasoning on recurring cause of action not accepted – Suit prayers regarding deeds of 2002, 2004, 2005, and 2010 held barred by limitation. [Para 14-17]

Decision – Rejection of Plaint – Court finds that Trial Court erred in dismissing application under Order VII Rule 11 – Suit prayers clearly barred by limitation – Civil Revision Petition allowed – Trial Court’s order set aside – Plaint rejected. [Para 18-19]

Service Law – Pay Revision and Recovery Notice – Petitioner, initially appointed as a daily wager and later receiving a fixed salary, challenged the recovery of alleged excess salary based on audit objections. High Court quashed the impugned order and recovery notice, directing proper pay revision and payment of arrears [Paras 1-12].

Procedure under Articles 14, 16, and 226 – Petitioner’s rights under constitutional provisions were examined, focusing on the due process for salary recovery and pay revision – Court emphasized the importance of following established procedures and providing fair opportunity for representation [Paras 3-10].

Decision – Petition allowed – Held – Impugned order and recovery notice set aside – Respondents directed to revise the petitioner’s pay and disburse arrears in accordance with established procedures [Paras 11-12].

Pension – Counting of Past Service – Petitioners sought direction for pension consideration by counting their services rendered as daily wagers from their initial appointments. The Court held that the past service of daily wagers must be counted for pension benefits, not just from the date of regularization. Petitioners entitled to pensionary benefits considering services prior to regularization [Paras 1-11].

Judicial Precedents – Pension Rights – Various judgments, including Supreme Court rulings, emphasized that pension is a right and not a bounty. Past services of daily wage employees must be considered for pension if they were regularized later [Paras 9(i)-(xii)].

Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – Court directed respondents to count the past services of petitioners for pensionary benefits. The exercise to be completed within twelve weeks. No arrears of salary but past service counted only for pension [Para 10-12].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Petitioner challenged the dismissal of her application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint filed by her mother, Smt. Saraswathamma – The suit sought cancellation of gift and partition deeds and declarations against sale deeds executed in 2002, 2004, 2005, and 2010 – Trial Court rejected the application on the ground that the issues could only be adjudicated after a full-fledged trial [Paras 1-16].

Limitation – Barred by Time – The suit was filed in 2019, 15 years after the gift deed and more than a decade after the other deeds – Saraswathamma did not plead fraud or undue influence in the execution of the gift deed – Court found the suit was clearly barred by limitation as it was filed well beyond the three-year period allowed for challenging such deeds [Paras 9-14].

Recurring Cause of Action – Trial Court’s reasoning of recurring cause of action due to partition was found untenable – Saraswathamma did not seek partition but only declarations regarding the deeds – Court held that the concept of recurring cause of action did not apply [Paras 16-17].

Decision – Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC allowed – Plaint filed by Saraswathamma stands rejected – Civil Revision Petition allowed [Paras 18-19].
 

Criminal Law – Bail Application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner (accused No. 3) sought bail in a case involving allegations under the Dowry Prohibition Act and IPC, including dowry harassment, assault, and abetment of sexual assault by the father-in-law (accused No. 2) – Petitioner argued false implication, delay in filing FIR, and absence of injuries as reasons for bail [Paras 1-4].

Delay in Lodging FIR and Investigation Status – Incident occurred on 4th February and 9th March 2024, but FIR lodged on 15th March 2024 – Court noted no materials produced by prosecution to support allegations against petitioner – Petitioner, a 51-year-old woman, had been in judicial custody since 16th March 2024 [Paras 3, 6].

Conditions for Bail – Petitioner granted bail with conditions to ensure attendance in court, prevent tampering with evidence, and ensure no commission of similar offences – Bail granted on bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two sureties of the same amount [Paras 5-7].

Decision – Petition allowed – Petitioner enlarged on bail with conditions to safeguard against potential flight risk or interference with prosecution witnesses – Directions given to Trial Court for verification of sureties and addresses before accepting the bail bond [Paras 7-7].

Labour Law – Regularization of Service – Petitioners, employed as binders and printers on a piece-rate basis, sought regularization after working for over 22 years – Government rejected their claim citing lack of direct employment records – Petitioners contended employment was continuous despite being through contractors to circumvent direct employment evidence [Paras 1-7].

Evidence of Continuous Employment – Petitioners provided salary and attendance records, inspection reports, and affidavits indicating continuous employment from 2000 to 2023, albeit through different contractors – Government acknowledged petitioners' service but cited a lack of continuous employment between 2011 and 2015 [Paras 8-19].

Supreme Court and High Court Precedents – Petitioners relied on judgments in Nagendra S.G. and Sheo Narain Nagar cases to assert their right to regularization – Court considered the principle of granting monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement from Ranbir Singh case due to the closure of the printing press [Paras 20-33].

Decision – Writ Petition disposed of – Petitioners entitled to monetary compensation of Rs. 25,000 per year of service from 2000 to 2010 and Rs. 50,000 per year from 2016 to 2023 – Compensation to be paid within two months in lieu of reinstatement and regularization, serving as full settlement of all claims [Paras 34-38].
 

Election Law – Disqualification of Candidate – Petitioner challenged the election of respondent No. 1 to Biruvalli Gram Panchayat on grounds of disqualification under Section 12(h) of the Act, claiming respondent had a share or interest in work done by the Panchayat – Election Tribunal rejected the petition, leading to this writ petition [Paras 1-2].

Interpretation of Statutory Provisions – Section 12(h) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act – Tribunal found no disqualification as respondent No. 1 had no subsisting contract with the Panchayat at the time of election notification – Clarification by Karnataka State Election Commission emphasized disqualification applies only with an existing contract [Paras 3, 8].

Conflict of Interest – Purpose of Disqualification – Court noted the purpose of Section 12(h) is to prevent conflict of interest – Applied purposive interpretation to hold disqualification applies only where there is a subsisting contract, avoiding an unreasonable and absurd consequence of disqualifying any member with past contracts [Paras 18-33].

Decision – Writ Petition dismissed – Tribunal’s interpretation upheld that only a subsisting contract can disqualify a candidate under Section 12(h) of the Act – No interference warranted with the Tribunal’s findings [Paras 34-39].

Service Law – Back Wages – Reinstatement Following Illegal Termination – Petitioner, a Lecturer, was terminated illegally and reinstated after 10 years without back wages – Held, reinstatement does not automatically entitle one to back wages; requires proving non-gainful employment during the period – Fault lies with the employer (governing body) for non-compliance – Order to regularize service and disburse consequential financial benefits [Paras 6-13].

Grant of Back Wages – No Work No Pay Principle – Supreme Court precedents cited indicating exceptions to the principle when the fault lies with the employer – Petitioner diligently pursued reinstatement, indicating lack of gainful employment – Employer’s inaction deemed unlawful, warranting full back wages [Paras 10-12].

Regularization of Service – Government and Governing Body’s Responsibility – State authorities directed to ensure compliance with the Director’s order for reinstatement and regularization – State’s plea of helplessness rejected; model employer obligation emphasized [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – Orders for regularization of petitioner’s service from 23.09.1995 to 09.01.2006 with all consequential financial benefits – Compliance required within two months [Para 15].