Civil Procedure - Rebuttal Evidence - Handwriting Expert: Petitioners contested the trial court's order allowing respondents to examine a handwriting expert in rebuttal. The petitioners argued that this would fill the lacuna in the respondents' evidence. The High Court affirmed that under Order XVIII, Rule 3 CPC, a party can lead rebuttal evidence on issues where the onus is on the opposite party if reserved at the close of its evidence. Given the dispute over the authenticity of a Will, the court upheld the trial court’s decision to allow rebuttal evidence for a fair adjudication [Paras 1-14].

Evidence Act - Expert Testimony - Authenticity of Will: The court highlighted that the authenticity of a disputed Will is crucial and that expert testimony from both parties would assist the court in reaching a just decision. The petitioners' failure to specifically deny the signatures on the Will in their written statement justified the respondents' right to examine a handwriting expert in rebuttal [Paras 3-12].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed - The trial court's order allowing the examination of a handwriting expert in rebuttal upheld. The court found no illegality or perversity in the trial court’s decision, emphasizing the necessity for a just determination of the dispute [Paras 14-15].

SARFAESI Act – Agricultural Land Exemption – Writ Jurisdiction: Petitioner challenged the initiation of SARFAESI Act proceedings against its agricultural land, arguing that such land is exempt under Section 31(i) of the Act. The High Court reiterated that the classification of land in revenue records alone does not determine its status under SARFAESI; actual use and intention of the parties are crucial. The court emphasized that such determinations are within the jurisdiction of the appropriate tribunal and not for writ courts unless exceptional circumstances exist [Paras 1-9].

SARFAESI Act – Alternative Remedy – OTS Proposal: High Court dismissed the petition, stressing the availability of statutory remedies under SARFAESI Act. The court noted the petitioner's request for a new OTS did not warrant interference in SARFAESI proceedings. It reaffirmed the principle that borrowers do not have a vested right to an OTS, citing the Supreme Court’s precedent [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed - Petitioner directed to pursue remedies under SARFAESI Act. The court allowed for the possibility of a mutually acceptable settlement between the parties, clarifying no opinion on the merits [Paras 13-14].

Registration Act, 1908 – Section 17 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 53A – Agreement to sell – Transfer by way of affidavit with possession – The Court held that an affidavit does not amount to relinquishment of title and must be registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. However, the affidavit can be treated as an agreement to sell with delivery of possession, protected under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The Court found that the ingredients of Section 53A were fulfilled as the defendant had paid the total consideration and was in continuous possession [Paras 9-10].

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act – Protection of possession – The Court noted that Section 53A protects the possession of the proposed purchaser if the transferee has taken possession or continued in possession and has performed their part of the contract. In this case, the defendant's possession was protected as the plaintiff had received the entire sale consideration and acknowledged the defendant's possession [Paras 9-10].

Plaintiff's Conduct – Estoppel – The plaintiff's conduct, including remaining out of the village and not contesting the mutation of the property in favor of the defendant, supported the defendant's claim. The Court applied the rule of estoppel under Section 53A, preventing the plaintiff from denying the defendant's rights [Para 9].

Decision: The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the First Appellate Court is set aside, and the trial court's judgment is restored. The plaintiff is not entitled to the decree of possession of the suit property.

Civil Procedure – Production of Additional Documents – Petitioner challenged the order of the Trial Court that partially allowed the application under Order VII Rule 14 CPC – Contention that documents were highly relevant for adjudication of the matter and were improperly excluded – Trial Court found the reasons for delay in preparing documents irrelevant – High Court dismissed the petition on grounds of unreasonable delay in filing and lack of cogent explanation for not producing documents earlier [Paras 1-37].

Petition under Article 227 – Timeliness and Diligence – Petition filed 21 months after the impugned order without sufficient explanation for delay – Court emphasized need for timely filing and reasonable explanations for delays – Petitioner’s conduct and lack of urgency noted as factors against them [Paras 22-26, 37].

Order VII Rule 14 CPC – Requirements and Discretion – Rule mandates that documents should be produced with the plaint unless leave of court is obtained – Petitioner’s failure to justify delay and improper reasons for document preparation highlighted – Court stressed that discretion under Rule 14 must be exercised judiciously with sound reasons [Paras 27-28, 36].

Decision: Petition Dismissed – Held – No interference with the Trial Court’s order – Petitioner’s explanations deemed insufficient and their conduct noted as not diligent or vigilant in pursuing the case [Paras 37].

Execution of Decree – Back Wages Liability – Petitioner, an Education Officer, challenged orders directing her to pay back wages to the decree holder, a terminated Assistant Teacher – School Tribunal's judgment reinstating the teacher with back wages became final – High Court held State Government primarily liable for payment, not the individual officer – Orders of Executing Court directing personal recovery against Education Officer modified to impose liability on State Government – Petition dismissed with directions for the State to comply with the Tribunal’s judgment [Paras 1-35].

Superintendence of High Court – Article 227 of the Constitution – High Court's power to vary orders of the Executing Court – Emphasized need for prompt compliance with judicial orders to prevent frustration of decrees – Directed State Government to pay outstanding dues promptly and granted liberty to recover amounts from School Management [Paras 31-35].

Decision – Writ Petition dismissed – Held – Executing Court’s orders modified – State Government directed to pay full back wages to the decree holder and recover from the School Management if necessary – No stay on the judgment despite request from State Government [Paras 28-36].

Rent Control – Eviction – Jurisdiction – Respondent filed for eviction due to non-payment of rent and personal necessity. The petitioner claimed ownership based on an unregistered sale deed, disputing tenant status and jurisdiction under the Rent Control Act. Rent Controller and Appellate Court held in favor of the respondent, affirming tenancy and non-payment of rent, rejecting the unregistered deed as proof of ownership. Petition dismissed by High Court, confirming the Rent Controller’s jurisdiction and dismissal of the unregistered sale deed [Paras 1-8].
Unregistered Sale Deed – Proof of Ownership – Petitioner’s claim of ownership based on an unregistered sale deed from 2010 rejected due to lack of a registered document. Tax receipts and independent evidence supported respondent’s ownership and tenancy claim. High Court upheld findings, emphasizing the necessity of registered documentation for proving ownership [Paras 5-6].
Jurisdiction under Rent Control Act – Rent Controller’s jurisdiction confirmed as rent was Rs.750/-, below the Rs.2,500/- threshold. High Court affirmed Rent Controller and Appellate Court’s findings, dismissing petitioner’s jurisdictional challenge [Paras 6-7].
Decision – Civil Revision Petition Dismissed – High Court found no grounds to interfere with lower courts’ orders. Petitioner’s inability to demonstrate ownership through a registered deed confirmed respondent’s ownership and entitlement to eviction. Petition dismissed without costs, pending miscellaneous petitions closed [Paras 7-8].
 

Industrial Disputes - Settlement Validity - Appellants, retired employees, were denied IDA increments due to a 12(3) Settlement dated 03.11.2017 between Trade Unions and Management - Settlement excluded those retired before 01.04.2017 - Appellants not parties to the settlement - Court held that the settlement, being unjust and discriminatory, did not bind the appellants - Orders denying IDA increments set aside [Paras 6-14].

Settlement Exclusion - Challenge Requirement - Court noted appellants need not challenge the 12(3) Settlement as they were not parties and had retired prior to the settlement - Relief granted in line with earlier Court orders mandating IDA increments [Paras 12-14].

Financial Constraint Argument - Rejected - Court dismissed respondent's argument of financial constraints as a ground for denying statutory dues - Emphasized compliance with judicial orders [Paras 13-14].

Representation and Service - Court noted appellants' long, unblemished service and unjust exclusion from IDA benefits despite favorable Court orders - Directed compliance with prior directives to grant IDA increments from January 2016 to retirement date [Paras 6-14].

Contempt of Court - Earlier Non-Compliance - Noted previous Court orders (01.03.2016 and 12.07.2017) in W.P.No.13121/2013 and W.A.No.899/2016 mandating IDA increments were not adhered to by respondents - Appellants' representations ignored, leading to contempt petition - Current decision reiterates enforcement of these orders [Paras 7-12].

Decision: Writ Appeal allowed - Orders denying IDA increments set aside - Respondents directed to grant IDA increments from January 2016 to the date of retirement as per earlier judicial orders.
 

Patents – Rejection of Patent Application – Appeal against rejection of patent application for method of preparation of Plasma-derived Hepatitis B Human Immunoglobulin Agent – Patent Controller’s order lacking discussion on prior arts and justifiable reasons – Remitted for fresh consideration [Paras 1-10].

Prior Arts – Lack of Discussion – Respondent failed to discuss cited prior arts documents D1 to D4 with specific reference to the appellant’s claimed invention – Summary rejection without detailed reasoning deemed unjustified [Paras 7-8].

Technical Features and Data – Appellant provided data and method steps not considered by Patent Controller – Findings on lack of inventive step and technical disclosure erroneous – Justifiable reasons for conclusions not supplied [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Patent application remitted for fresh consideration by a different Patent Controller – Fair hearing mandated within four months – No order as to costs [Paras 9-10].
 

Criminal Law – Special Leave to Appeal – Petition filed under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C. – Assailing acquittal in cheque bounce case where cheque issued by respondent was dishonored due to insufficient funds – Trial court acquitted respondent – Petitioner sought leave to appeal [Paras 1-4].

Section 138, 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act – Presumption and Burden of Proof – Petitioner argued that respondent did not dispute issuance or signature on the cheque – Presumption under Section 139 that cheque was issued for discharge of debt – Respondent failed to rebut this presumption – Trial court’s assessment challenged for improper appreciation of evidence [Paras 5-14].

Privity of Contract – Legally Enforceable Debt – No direct transaction between petitioner and respondent – Cheque issued allegedly to discharge loan of a third party (Sunil) – Lack of evidence of any agreement or contract between petitioner and respondent – No legally enforceable debt proven [Paras 10-14].

Criteria for Granting Leave – Judicial Scrutiny – Emphasized that leave to appeal is not a right – Must be based on substantial grounds showing error in trial court’s judgment – Safeguard to prevent undue harassment of acquitted persons – Leave to appeal should be granted only if lower court’s decision is materially flawed [Paras 5-17].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – No infirmities in trial court’s judgment – Lack of evidence to prove legally enforceable debt – No substantial grounds for appeal – Criminal original petition dismissed, and criminal appeal rejected at SR stage [Para 17].