Specific Relief Act – Bar to Declaratory Relief – The court emphasized that a suit for mere declaratory relief without seeking consequential relief is barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. The appellant failed to seek possession in the original suit, rendering the suit unmaintainable [Paras 26-36].

Constructive Res Judicata – The court upheld the principle that issues not raised in prior stages of litigation, including execution proceedings and miscellaneous appeals, cannot be re-litigated in a fresh suit. This is especially applicable when the prior decisions have attained finality [Paras 30-31].

Auction Sale – Validity and Legal Provisions – The court confirmed the validity of the auction sale under Order XXI Rule 92(3) of the CPC. The challenge to the auction sale was barred as it had not been timely raised in the execution proceedings or subsequent appeals, thereby invoking the bar of constructive res judicata [Paras 37-39].

Decision:

Second Appeal allowed – Lower appellate court’s judgment and decree set aside – Auction sale affirmed – Suit barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act and Order XXI Rule 92(3) of the CPC – Costs of Rs. 5000/- imposed on the respondents [Paras 36-40].

Service Law – Mental Illness – Disciplinary Proceedings – Petitioner suffering from Bipolar Disorder Hypo-mania challenged the disciplinary actions leading to withholding of increments and other penalties – Pleadings included his treatment and certification of fitness by medical authorities – Disciplinary actions initiated without considering petitioner's mental health condition – High Court referred to Section 47 of RPwD Act and Supreme Court judgments emphasizing non-discrimination against persons with disabilities – Disciplinary actions set aside as violative of RPwD Act provisions and constitutional rights [Paras 1-23].

Mental Health – Disability Rights – Protection under RPwD Act – High Court discussed various facets of Bipolar Disorder, its impact on behavior, and the necessary accommodations under the RPwD Act – Referred to landmark Supreme Court rulings affirming the protection and non-discriminatory treatment of employees with disabilities – Court mandated periodic medical evaluations and appropriate adjustments to ensure the petitioner's rights and dignity at the workplace [Paras 8-18].

Decision: Disciplinary actions against the petitioner, including orders dated 23.01 .2012 and 25.07.2012, were set aside. The respondents were directed to provide the petitioner with necessary medical evaluations and support, ensuring compliance with the RPwD Act provisions. The petitioner's writ petition was disposed of with observations and directions to prevent future discrimination based on his mental health condition.
 

Service Law – Recruitment Rules – Petitioners challenge the stipulation in the Recruitment Rules of 2011, allowing promotion from H/CT DCPO to ASI (Fire) – Petitioners argue the rules are arbitrary, as H/CT DCPOs lack qualifications and training for ASI (Fire) duties – High Court evaluates the validity of the recruitment rules and the petitioners' claims of arbitrariness and reservation in promotions [Paras 2-4, 6-7, 9-10].

Judicial Review – Scope and Limitations – High Court emphasizes the limited scope of judicial review in challenging recruitment rules – Courts cannot substitute the employer's wisdom in framing recruitment policies unless they violate constitutional provisions – Reliance on Supreme Court judgments reaffirming that policy-making and creation of posts are the prerogatives of the government [Paras 10-12].

Constitutional Validity – Petitioners' reliance on Supreme Court judgment in Union of India and Another v. Ganpati Dealcom Private Limited does not support their case – High Court finds no violation of Articles 14 and 21 in the impugned recruitment rules – Petition dismissed as without merit [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Recruitment rules permitting promotion from H/CT DCPO to ASI (Fire) upheld – High Court concludes the rules are valid and in operation for over a decade without infringing constitutional rights [Paras 10-14].

Partition Suit – Separate Water Connection – Petitioners sought directions for installing a separate water connection in the property shared with respondents – Trial Court appointed a Local Commissioner to examine feasibility – Report submitted but Trial Court refused directions, stating the issue was a separate cause of action – Petitioners challenge this under Article 227 [Paras 1-6].

Human Rights – Basic Amenities – Petitioners argue refusal to allow separate water connection infringes on basic human rights – Local Commissioner’s report favored installation, and respondents did not object – High Court emphasizes importance of access to basic amenities [Paras 7-9].

Court’s Observations – Prior Orders – High Court notes previous interim orders regarding water supply – Criticizes Trial Court for not considering these and Local Commissioner’s report – Highlights the need for peaceful enjoyment of property pending suit adjudication [Paras 14-17].

Decision: Impugned order set aside – Matter remanded to Trial Court for reconsideration of the application – Trial Court to provide an opportunity for petitioners to be heard and consider previous orders and Local Commissioner’s report – Petition disposed of [Paras 18-19].

Partition Suit – Admissions – Application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC for judgment based on plaintiff’s admissions – Defendants argue that properties were orally partitioned during the lifetime of Late Shri Sardar Sewa Singh, and the partition was recorded in a Memorandum dated 18.07.1975 – Plaintiff admitted the Memorandum during admission/denial of documents – High Court considers the legal implications of admitted documents and the plaintiff’s claim of being misled into admission [Paras 1-8, 19-20].

Oral Partition – Legal Implications – High Court finds the plaintiff's admission of the Memorandum of Partition and Relinquishment Deed in favor of his mother significant – Plaintiff’s claim of being misled rejected as an attempt to evade admitted facts – Oral partition recognized and acted upon by the parties – Properties either sold or in exclusive possession of the defendants, with sale proceeds distributed among legal heirs [Paras 20-23, 29].

Pleadings – Requirements under CPC – Emphasis on the necessity for detailed and precise pleadings under Order VI Rule 4 of CPC – Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient details or documents to support claims – Vague and evasive pleadings found insufficient to sustain the claim for partition [Paras 24-28].

Decision: Application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC allowed – Suit of the plaintiff dismissed along with pending applications – High Court concludes that the oral partition and subsequent actions by the parties effectively settled the matter long before the suit was filed [Paras 29-30].

Resignation and Withdrawal – Validity – Appellant, a headmistress, tendered resignation effective from a future date – Withdrawal of resignation submitted before the effective date – Court emphasized the general principle that a prospective resignation can be withdrawn before it becomes effective – Resignation becomes effective only when it terminates the employment – Courts below erred in holding resignation effective upon acceptance by the school authority without considering the timely withdrawal by appellant [Paras 8, 9, 27, 29].

Employment Law – Prospective Resignation – Admitted facts indicated resignation was not given effect immediately and appellant continued duties until the specified future date – Withdrawal of resignation received before the effective date, making the resignation ineffective – Decision by managing committee after receipt of withdrawal letter is legally untenable [Paras 16, 19, 29, 34].

Judicial Precedents – Application – Court referred to established precedents affirming the right to withdraw a prospective resignation before it takes effect – Cited Supreme Court decisions underscoring the principle that a resignation can be rescinded before it affects the tenure of employment [Paras 24-27].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – Judgment and decree by trial court and appellate court set aside – Suit dismissed – Appellant deemed to have withdrawn resignation validly before it became effective – Proper application of law required acknowledgment of withdrawal [Paras 34-36].

Abetment of Suicide – Insufficient Evidence – The court examined whether the petitioner’s actions constituted abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. The petitioner's actions, including alleged insults and demands for money, did not satisfy the necessary ingredients of abetment, such as instigation or intentional aiding. The court emphasized the need for a proximate and live link between the accused's conduct and the suicide​​.

Proximate Cause and Mens Rea – For abetment of suicide, the accused must have the mens rea to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. The act of instigation must be of such intensity that it leaves the deceased with no option but to commit suicide. In this case, there was no evidence to suggest that the petitioner intended to push the deceased to suicide or that his actions were the sole factor leading to the suicide​​.

Delayed Complaint and Initial Statements – The initial statements by the deceased's wife and brother did not attribute any blame for the death. The complaint leading to the FIR was filed eight days after the death, which raised questions about its credibility. The court noted that mere harassment or insults without a positive act of instigation could not constitute abetment​​.

Decision:

The revision petition was allowed, and the petitioner was discharged. The court set aside the order dated 06.01.2022 passed by the Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib. It was determined that the actions attributed to the petitioner did not establish the offence of abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC​​.

Motor Vehicles Act – Motor Accident Claims – Negligence – Tribunal's Findings – Appeal by insurer challenging award for damages to respondent’s car – Accident caused by rash and negligent driving of an Alto car insured by appellant – Tribunal awarded Rs.1,07,447/- with interest – Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court principles on the nature of Tribunal proceedings and reliance on police reports as prima facie evidence of negligence upheld [Paras 1-11].

Evidence – Documentary Proof – Formally Proving Documents – Tribunal relied on survey report and repair bills – Appellant contended lack of formal proof – Court held that non-objection to documents at trial stage and their prima facie reliability justified Tribunal’s reliance [Paras 12-13].

Quantum of Compensation – Depreciation – Appellant argued for deduction based on vehicle's age – Tribunal accounted for depreciation in awarding lesser amount than claimed – No fault found in Tribunal’s method, adherence to established law on depreciation noted [Paras 14-15].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Tribunal's award upheld – No substantial questions of law or errors in Tribunal’s findings – Appellant directed to deposit remaining award amount within one month.

Motor Accident Claims – Insurance Company Appeal – Appeal against award of compensation by the II Additional District MACT, Kasaragod – Accident involving collision between a Ford Escort car and an Alto car insured by the appellant – Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,07,447/- with interest to the respondent for damages to the car – Insurance company contended lack of negligence proof, improper reliance on unproved documents, and failure to account for depreciation – High Court upheld Tribunal’s decision based on prima facie evidence of negligence from police records and unchallenged survey reports and bills – Appeal dismissed, interim orders vacated, appellant directed to deposit awarded amount within one month [Paras 1-15].

Negligence and Liability – Proof of Negligence – Tribunal’s finding based on FIR, final report, and motor vehicle inspection report – Insurance company's lack of challenge to the evidentiary documents and absence of driver do not negate proof of negligence – High Court reinforced established principle that police charge sheet is prima facie evidence of negligence [Paras 11-12].

Assessment of Damages – Evidentiary Value – Reliance on unchallenged survey report and bills for repair costs – Tribunal’s acceptance of reliable documents and rejection of unreliable ones upheld – High Court found no error in Tribunal’s approach or awarded amount considering depreciation [Paras 12-14].

Decision: Motor Accident Claims Appeal dismissed – Tribunal’s award upheld – Appellant directed to deposit the awarded amount within one month – No costs [Para 15].