Civil Procedure – Impleadment of Parties – Pending Litigation – Specific Performance – Defendant No.1 executed an agreement for sale of land – Defendant No.1 died and respondents No.1 to 3 were impleaded as legal representatives – Respondents No.1 to 3 sold entire land to respondents No.16 & 17 via two separate sale deeds – Respondents No.16 & 17 sought impleadment as necessary parties under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC – Held, impleadment of respondents No.16 & 17 as parties under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC against settled principles – Assignee of suit property during pending litigation may continue or defend suit under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC – Respondents No.16 & 17 permitted to move application under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC – Defense limited to original written statement. [Paras 1-21]

Assignment and Continuation – Analysis – Held – Order 22 Rule 10 CPC deals with situations where a party assigns property or an interest devolves during litigation – Assignee may file application to be substituted and continue litigation – Impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC allows full participation as original defendant – Limitation of assignees to defenses of original defendants ensures procedural fairness – Respondents No.16 & 17 to apply under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC to step into shoes of original defendants without reopening settled matters. [Paras 11-14]

Decision – Allowing Revision Petition – Court sets aside trial court's order allowing impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC – Grants liberty to respondents No.16 & 17 to apply under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC within one month – Trial court to decide application as per law – Impleadment limited to defenses available to original defendants – Previous proceedings unaffected. [Para 21]

Court Fees – Ad Valorem Fee – Sale Deed Signed by Minor – Fraud Allegation – Petitioner challenged the trial court's order directing him to pay ad valorem court fee on the sale consideration of a sale deed allegedly signed by him as a minor – Held, sale deed executed on behalf of minor through guardian on better footing than petitioner’s case where signatures obtained by fraud – Petitioner required to pay ad valorem court fee under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act – Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-8]

Comparison of Cases – Analysis – Held – Supreme Court’s ruling in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh and others distinguished – Non-executant suits attract nominal court fee, but executant challenging a sale deed must pay ad valorem fee – Petitioner’s case weaker than a minor’s sale deed executed by guardian – Trial court's order correct, no interference warranted. [Paras 6-7]

Decision – Dismissing Petition – Court upholds trial court's order requiring petitioner to pay ad valorem court fee on sale consideration – Petition dismissed, no interference in revisional jurisdiction. [Para 8]

Criminal Law – Kidnapping and Rape of Minor – Plea of Consent – Appellant convicted for kidnapping and raping a minor girl – School records and medical evidence established victim’s age as 14 years – Plea of consent dismissed as minor cannot consent – Conviction and sentence upheld. [Paras 1-27]

Victim’s Age and Evidence – Analysis – Held – School headmaster testified victim's age as 14 years based on school records – Medical examination corroborated age – Defence failed to disprove school records or produce evidence of majority – Age established beyond doubt, negating consent argument. [Paras 13-14]

Seriousness of Offence – Rape by Kidnapping – Analysis – Held – Rape by kidnapping a minor girl is a severe crime affecting victim’s dignity and honour – Victim suffered additional trauma due to loss of father shortly after incident – Sexual violence recognized as a crime against society – Sentence affirmed, emphasizing need for strict punishment. [Paras 23-25]

Decision – Dismissing Appeal and Awarding Compensation – Appeal dismissed on merits – State directed to pay ₹5 lakhs compensation to victim and additional ₹5 lakhs for loss of father – Compensation aimed at rehabilitation and addressing trauma faced by the victim. [Paras 27]

Service Law – Dismissal for Fake Certificate – Teacher’s Role Model Responsibility – Petitioner, an S.S. Master, dismissed for obtaining promotion based on a fake M.A. degree – Claimed similar leniency as another individual who received compulsory retirement – Held, teachers are role models and must maintain high integrity – Permitting leniency in such cases sends wrong signal – Dismissal appropriate given petitioner’s undue advantage of delay – Compulsory retirement inappropriate as it could result in substantial retiral benefits – Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-17]

Fake Degree and Promotion – Analysis – Held – Teacher’s role crucial in shaping young minds – Indulgence in fake certificates for promotion undermines educational integrity – Petitioner obtained undue benefits from delay in proceedings – Case handled as per strict standards to serve as deterrent – Supreme Court judgment in Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya cited to highlight importance of teacher’s character and qualifications. [Paras 14-15]

Decision – Dismissing Writ Petition – Court upholds dismissal from service for submitting fake degree – Leniency not justified for educational professionals – Authorities urged to handle similar cases expeditiously to deter misuse of fake qualifications – Petition dismissed with direction for recovery of undue benefits drawn from fake degree. [Para 17-18]

Service Law – Recruitment – Denial of Appointment on Criminal Grounds – Petitioner's selection for post of Constable was withheld due to his name being mentioned in a criminal case – Investigation revealed no involvement of petitioner, declaring him innocent – State contended petitioner could still be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Held, mere possibility of being summoned is not sufficient to deny appointment – Petitioner had no pending criminal case, was not arrested, nor cited as a witness – Denial of appointment on hypothetical future events is unfair – State directed to consider petitioner’s appointment within 30 days. [Paras 1-17]

Criminal Law – Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Analysis – Held – The possibility of summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. must be clear, distinct, and very likely to happen – Hypothetical future events cannot injure civil rights – Petitioner’s mere presence during the incident does not imply direct involvement – No criminal case pending or involvement in any capacity justifies consideration for appointment. [Paras 4, 9, 13, 15]

Decision – Allowing Writ Petition – Court quashes State’s denial of appointment based on potential Section 319 Cr.P.C. implications – Mandamus issued to consider petitioner for appointment within 30 days – Petitioner entitled to notional benefits from the date of initial selection and salary from date of petition filing. [Paras 16-17]

Civil Procedure – Amendment of Plaint – Possession and Fraud – Petitioner filed suit for permanent injunction against defendant No.1 – Sought to amend plaint to include particulars of fraud alleged to be played by defendant No.1 – Trial Court denied amendment, stating trial had commenced – Held, Order 6 Rule 17 CPC permits amendment at any stage for determining real questions in controversy – Trial not commenced as no evidence led by parties – Petitioner entitled to amend plaint to specify fraud allegations – Trial Court’s order not sustainable – Impugned order set aside. [Paras 1-20]

Amendment After Commencement of Trial – Analysis – Held – Amendment permissible if trial has not commenced in essence, meaning no evidence led by parties – Issues framed do not equate to commencement of trial – Amendment necessary to detail allegations of fraud – Application of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC clarified – Real questions in controversy must be addressed through amendments. [Paras 18-20]

Decision – Allowing Revision Petition – Court sets aside Trial Court’s order – Petitioner allowed to amend plaint to include detailed allegations of fraud – Case remanded for further proceedings as per law. [Para 21]

Hindu Marriage Act – Nullity of Marriage – Fraud – Appellant's marriage with respondent declared nullity by trial court under Section 12 of the Act – Appellant's previous marriage with Satish Kumar allegedly not dissolved by a court decree, only by Panchayatnama (agreement) – Held, Panchayatnama not valid proof of divorce – Respondent not aware of non-dissolution of appellant's previous marriage – Appeal dismissed, confirming trial court’s judgment. [Paras 1-8]

Validity of Divorce by Agreement – Analysis – Held – Divorce by Panchayatnama is not recognized under the law – Valid divorce requires decree from competent court – Fraud established as appellant misrepresented marital status – Petition filed within one year of discovery of fraud as per Section 12(1)(C) – No merit in appeal challenging limitation and maintainability. [Paras 6-7]

Decision – Dismissing Appeal – Court upholds trial court’s judgment and decree – Confirms marriage as nullity due to non-dissolution of appellant’s previous marriage by court decree – Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs. [Paras 7-8]

Civil Procedure – Indigent Person – Application and Procedure – Respondent filed suit for damages and sought to sue as an indigent person – Civil Court relied on Tehsildar’s report – Petitioner's objection that application was not presented in person and without notice – Held, application to sue as indigent person must be presented in person as per Order 33 Rule 3 CPC – Notice to opposite party and Government pleader mandatory under Order 33 Rule 6 CPC – No such notice given – Order declaring respondent indigent without notice and personal presentation is illegal – Impugned order set aside. [Paras 1-16]

Application Presentation – Personal Appearance Requirement – Analysis – Held – Order 33 Rule 3 CPC requires personal presentation of application to sue as indigent person – Application presented by advocate without plaintiff’s presence invalid – Such defect cannot be cured by amendment – Mandatory rejection under Order 33 Rule 5(a) CPC. [Paras 9-12]

Notice Requirement – Indigency Inquiry – Analysis – Held – Court must issue notice to opposite party and Government pleader before declaring plaintiff indigent – No notice issued in this case – Declaration of indigency without notice is procedurally flawed and invalid. [Paras 8, 12]

Decision – Allowing Revision Petition – Court finds procedural violations in declaring respondent indigent – Impugned order set aside – Matter to comply with procedural requirements under Order 33 CPC. [Paras 14-16]

Contract Law – Marketing Discipline – Dealer Agreement – Petitioner, a dealer of petroleum products, faced cancellation of license due to allegations of tampering with the metering unit and short delivery – First inspection report showed no errors, but a second inspection on the same day found the seals broken – Held, cancellation order based on erroneous interpretation of guidelines and failure to consider technical explanations and defense evidence – Cancellation order quashed, dealership restored. [Paras 1-7]

Evidence and Administrative Procedure – Analysis – Held – Inspection showed no initial errors; subsequent report found broken seals due to rust and forceful inspectn – Technical report indicated seals not deliberately broken – Administrative action based on incorrect reading of guidelines and lack of consideration for the petitioner's defense – Authorities failed to examine critical technical evidence and circumstances. [Paras 4-5]

Decision – Allowing Writ Petition – Court quashes the impugned cancellation order and restores the petitioner's dealership – Finds administrative decision perverse and unsupported by evidence – Orders respondents to comply with guidelines properly in future inspections and decisions. [Para 7]