Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Held: The power to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is circumscribed by the averments in the plaint alone. The Court cannot embark upon a fact-finding exercise, look at the defense, or rely on external material at this stage. The Single Judge erred in recording a factual finding that the ancestor (Horam) never constituted a Joint Hindu Family (JHF) and that the property was self-acquired, which are matters for trial. [Paras 21-25].

Civil Procedure – Partial Rejection of Plaint – Held: A plaint cannot be rejected in part. Where the plaintiff asserted possession over a portion of the suit property and sought a permanent injunction, the rejection of the plaint without examining this prayer independently was contrary to settled legal principles. [Para 33].

Hindu Law – Coparcenary – Burden of Proof at Threshold Stage – Held: The Single Judge’s requirement for the plaintiff to produce documents showing contribution to reconstruction or to file affidavits regarding employment at the Order VII Rule 11 stage amounted to an impermissible appreciation of evidence. Issues regarding blending of property and existence of a JHF nucleus require trial. [Paras 26-27].

Decision: Appeal allowed. Impugned Judgment set aside. Suit restored to original number. [Para 34].

Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Competent Authority - Jurisdiction to Award Damages - Execution of Orders - Section 24(2) of the Rent Act - The Competent Authority under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, has jurisdiction not only to order eviction but also to determine and award damages at double the license fee against an overstaying licensee- Such orders are executable as if they were decrees of a Civil Court, and the transfer of such orders for execution to a Civil Court is permissible-

Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Section 24(2) - Execution of Decree - Damages for Overstaying Licensee - The appellant challenged the execution of an order by the Competent Authority under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, which awarded damages at double the license fee against him for overstaying in licensed premises- The appellant contended that the Competent Authority lacked jurisdiction to award damages, that its order was not a "decree" under CPC, and that execution was barred by limitation- The High Court, affirming the Single Judge's decision, held: The Competent Authority has the power to determine and award damages under Section 24(2) of the Rent Act, which is incidental to its power to evict- Such orders are executable as if they were decrees of a Civil Court- The legislative intent behind Section 24(4) is to deter overstaying licensees and prevent delays- The appellant's arguments, including those on nullity and limitation, were rejected as dilatory tactics aimed at frustrating the decree holder- The appeal was dismissed with exemplary costs- Paras [2-45]

Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Section 24(2) - Interpretation - Legislative Intent - Held: Section 24(2) of the Rent Act, providing for double damages against an overstaying licensee, is a deterrent provision- The legislative intent is to provide an expeditious remedy to licensors and prevent licensees from exploiting legal delays- An interpretation that would require separate civil suits for damages would undermine this objective- Paras [23, 24, 25, 26]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Execution of Orders - Competent Authority - Held: Orders passed by the Competent Authority under the Rent Act, including those awarding damages, are executable as if they were decrees of a Civil Court- The transfer of such orders for execution to a Civil Court is permissible, and arguments against such transfer based on the inapplicability of CPC provisions are misconceived- Paras [33, 34]

Execution Proceedings - Delay - Abuse of Process - Held: Unreasonable delay in the execution of a decree frustrates the fruits of success for a litigant- Judgment debtors should not abuse the process of the Court to defraud creditors- Raising contradictory pleas and dilatory tactics to delay payment, especially for a modest sum, constitutes an abuse of process- Paras [6, 42, 43]

Limitation - Execution of Orders - Held: The argument that execution proceedings were barred by limitation was rejected, as the appellant appeared to be indulging in speculative litigation to create hurdles- The Court found no facts to support the application of a limitation bar in this case- Paras [40]

Decision: Appeal dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/- - Directions issued for compliance report and discharge of bank guarantees - Paras [45, 49, 51].

Limitation – Condonation of Delay – Restoration of Appeal – Second Appeal dismissed on 25.11.2019 for non-removal of defects despite peremptory order dated 14.10.2019 – Petitioners filed application to condone delay of 2096 days in seeking restoration – Plea that mother was conducting litigation and failed to inform sons held implausible – Petitioner No.1 had earlier deposed as DW-1 stating he managed the case – Held: No sufficient cause shown for condoning long delay – Delay not condoned – Application dismissed [Paras 2–8]

Restoration – Dismissal for Default – Non-removal of Defects – Counsel for appellants was present and heard at time of dismissal – Case not dismissed for non-appearance but for failure to comply with Court’s directions – Plea that counsel’s name was missing from cause list rejected – Court found no justifiable explanation for non-compliance [Paras 5–6]

Litigation Conduct – Implausibility of Explanation – Petitioners’ claim that their elderly mother managed litigation without informing adult sons found baseless – Particularly in light of petitioner’s own prior admission under oath of conducting case himself – Held: Such justification cannot support condonation under law [Para 7]

Decision: Delay of 2096 days not condoned – Application for restoration dismissed – CMAPL also dismissed as consequence.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Protection under Section 197 CrPC – Custodial Violence Alleged – Petitioner, a Sub-Inspector, sought quashing of complaint citing absence of prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC – Complaint alleged illegal detention, physical assault, custodial abuse, and humiliation of complainant and her brother by police inside the police station – Held: Acts of custodial violence are wholly unrelated to discharge of official duties – No reasonable nexus between impugned acts and official duty – Hence, protection under Section 197 CrPC not attracted – Complaint not barred for want of sanction [Paras 12–23]

Official Duty – Scope of Section 197 CrPC – Reasonable Connection Test – Law reiterated that for the protection under Section 197 CrPC to apply, the act must be reasonably connected with the discharge of official duty – Mere fact that the accused is a public servant is not sufficient – Assault, custodial beating, or abuse inside lock-up fall outside the ambit of official functions – No protection when police officer exceeds authority and commits abuse without lawful justification [Paras 14–22]

Judicial Precedent – Custodial Violence – Supreme Court Rulings – Reiterated that custodial violence is unconstitutional and not protected by Section 197 CrPC – Cited: P.P. Unnikrishnan v. Puttiyottil Alikutty (2000) 8 SCC 131 – D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416 – Devinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2016) 12 SCC 87 – Dr. S.M. Mansoori v. Surekha Parmar 2023 SCC OnLine SC 436 – Held: Protection under Section 197 does not extend to illegal acts of torture or abuse inside police station [Paras 16–20]

Magistrate's Power – Cognizance and Recall – Magistrate has no power to recall summoning order under Section 204 CrPC – No review jurisdiction under CrPC – Relief, if any, lies under Section 482 CrPC – Findings upheld in light of Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal AIR 2004 SC 4674 and Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2004 SC 4711 [Paras 9–10]

Decision: Petition dismissed – Complaint against petitioner not barred for want of sanction under Section 197 CrPC – Trial to proceed as per law.

Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail – Maintainability Before High Court – Concurrent jurisdiction of Sessions Court and High Court – Applicant directly approached High Court without first applying before Sessions Court – Applicant not residing within jurisdiction of Sessions Court where FIR lodged – Held: Petition maintainable under Clause 26(B) of Full Bench decision in Ankit Bharti v. State of U.P. [Paras 2–4]

Freedom of Speech – Social Media Posts – Applicant’s tweets following Pahalgam terror attack criticized Government’s response and Prime Minister’s political rally – FIR alleged tweets incited communal disharmony and defamed the nation – Applicant argued protection under Article 19(1)(a) – Held: Freedom of expression subject to reasonable restrictions – Tweets posted during a sensitive national crisis and widely circulated internationally, including in Pakistan – Cannot claim blanket protection under Article 19(1)(a) [Paras 5–10, 17–18]

Criminal Law – Sedition-like Offences under New Law – Applicant charged under Section 152 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (replacing repealed Section 124A IPC) – Held: Prima facie assessment of charges not permissible at bail stage – Supreme Court has granted liberty to raise all defences at stage of framing of charge – High Court bound by Article 141 not to interfere [Paras 7–10, 20]

Judicial Discipline – Binding Effect of Supreme Court Orders – Applicant’s SLP challenging rejection of writ petition dismissed by Supreme Court with liberty to raise issues at appropriate stage – Held: High Court bound by Supreme Court’s direction and cannot pre-emptively assess merits of FIR or charges [Paras 11–12, 20]

Investigation – Non-Cooperation by Applicant – Despite specific directions by High Court and opportunity given by Investigating Officer, applicant failed to appear and evaded investigation – Police reports indicated frequent change of residence – Held: Applicant’s conduct shows lack of bona fides and disentitles her to discretionary relief of anticipatory bail [Paras 13, 19]

Decision: Anticipatory bail application rejected – Court held it is not a fit case for granting relief under Section 482 BNSS – Applicant at liberty to apply for discharge or raise objections at the stage of framing of charge, as directed by Supreme Court [Para 21]

Injunction – Matrimonial Dispute – Void Marriage – Appellate court reversed trial court order and granted temporary injunction restraining petitioner from representing herself as respondent’s wife – Marriage between petitioner and respondent held void under Section 11 read with Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as respondent’s first marriage was subsisting – ‘Daan Patra’ and ‘Shapath Patra’ relied on by petitioner were found irrelevant in law and insufficient to confer spousal status – Held: Appellate court rightly granted injunction to protect respondent’s legal marital status – No interference called for under Article 227 [Paras 5–7]

Misrepresentation – Clean Hands Doctrine – Petitioner alleged deception, abuse, and fraud by respondent – Cited Supreme Court rulings in Dalpat Kumar and Wander Ltd. – Held: Petitioner failed to establish any prima facie legal right due to the subsistence of respondent’s earlier marriage – No relief can be granted to a party not approaching the court with clean hands – Appellate court's findings upheld [Paras 4–6]

Article 227 – Judicial Review – Interference under supervisory jurisdiction not warranted where appellate court has exercised lawful discretion and committed no jurisdictional error – Petition dismissed [Para 7]

Decision: Petition dismissed – Injunction granted by appellate court upheld – Petitioner has no enforceable legal right to claim status of respondent’s wife.

Judicial Service Examination – Answer Key Dispute – Preliminary Examination – Petitioner secured 58 marks against qualifying mark of 60 – Objected to final key answers to Questions 86 and 98 – Court held Question 98 answer inconsistent as options A and C were accepted, but B (a part of C) was disallowed – Held: Denial of mark for option B unsustainable – Petitioner entitled to 1 mark [Paras 2(iii), 13, 17]

Vicarious Liability – Section 34 IPC – Misapplication in Answer Key – Question 86 asked which section reflects vicarious liability – Final answer was Section 34 IPC – Court held Section 34 deals with common intention and not vicarious liability – Based on Supreme Court ruling in Vasanth alias Girish Akbarasab Sanavale v. State of Karnataka, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 337 – Held: Answer to Question 86 is incorrect – Petitioner entitled to 1 additional mark [Paras 2(v), 14, 17]

Examination Law – Judicial Review of Answer Keys – Though courts usually refrain from evaluating correctness of answers in academic matters, Court held that where questions involve legal reasoning and do not require expert academic insight, interference is permissible – Respondent’s reliance on Ran Vijay Singh, Vikesh Kumar Gupta, and Dr. Praveen Kumar I. Kusubi distinguished as those involved subjective or expert-based evaluations – Held: Legal interpretation of IPC provisions falls within court’s domain [Paras 11–12, 14]

Delay in Filing Objection – Procedural Fairness – Petitioner’s objection to Question 86 raised after prescribed deadline – Court held that delay of less than 48 hours cannot defeat right to fair evaluation – Time limit not statutory – Petitioner’s right to challenge incorrect answer key upheld despite procedural lapse [Para 14]

Relief – Grace Marks Awarded – Court awarded 2 grace marks for two disputed questions – Held: Petitioner to be treated as qualified for main examination – Respondent directed to allow petitioner to pay fees and appear for main written exam on 06.12.2025 and 07.12.2025 – Relief limited to petitioner alone to avoid disturbance of overall selection process [Paras 15, 17]

Decision: Petition allowed – Two marks awarded to petitioner – Respondent directed to permit him to appear for main written examination.

Muslim Law – Remarriage with Divorced Husband – Halala – Respondent claimed to have remarried petitioner after prior divorce – Evidence revealed existence of intervening marriage with another man, but no proof of its dissolution was provided – Under Muslim law, remarriage with divorced husband is void unless intervening marriage is consummated and lawfully dissolved (Nikah Halala) – Held: In absence of legal dissolution of intervening marriage, alleged remarriage with petitioner is void and hit by doctrine of Halala – Respondent disqualified from claiming maintenance as wife [Paras 7–10, 14–15]

Maintenance – Section 125 CrPC – Presumption of Marriage – Long Cohabitation – Respondent relied on continuous cohabitation to claim presumption of valid marriage – Held: Presumption of marriage based on cohabitation arises only where no legal impediment exists – Since respondent’s prior marriage with another man was not proved to be dissolved, she remained legally married and could not validly remarry petitioner – No legal status as ‘wife’ – Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC cannot be granted [Paras 13–15]

Burden of Proof – Remarriage – When marriage is denied, burden lies on party asserting it – Respondent failed to prove essential elements of Nikah including presence of witnesses and performance by authorised Khatib – Neither mosque register nor witnesses examined – Evidence held insufficient to establish valid Muslim marriage [Paras 11–12]

Procedure – Summary Nature of Section 125 Proceedings – Evidence Requirement – Court held that despite the summary nature of Section 125 CrPC, basic legal prerequisites for spousal status must be established – Maintenance claim under Section 125 cannot succeed in absence of legal proof of marital status [Para 16]

Remand – Opportunity to Adduce Evidence – Considering impact of maintenance order on marital status, court remanded case for fresh decision – Held: Family Court to allow both parties to adduce further evidence on dissolution of intervening marriage and validity of alleged remarriage – Maintenance order set aside [Para 16]

Decision: Impugned maintenance order set aside – Case remanded to Family Court, Malappuram for fresh disposal – Parties to be given opportunity to adduce further evidence – To be decided within three months.

Easement of Necessity – Access Road – Plaintiffs sought declaration of easement of necessity and permanent injunction for a 10-feet wide road across defendant’s land (marked PQRS) – Trial Court found existence of necessity but held 10 feet width excessive – Decreed 3 feet wide pathway and granted injunction – First Appellate Court upheld the decree – High Court held that plaintiffs, being agriculturists, required access wide enough for bullock cart and transport of produce – Held: Easement of necessity granted with 6 feet width instead of 3 feet – Judgment and decree of lower courts modified accordingly [Paras 1–12].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Judgment and decree of Trial Court and First Appellate Court modified to grant plaintiffs easementary right over a 6 feet wide pathway – Rest of the decree remains undisturbed.