Procedural Law - Counsel's withdrawal and its effect on party representation - Counsel for the plaintiff withdrew without instructions, Trial Court decided case without notifying appellant - Held improper as per Baljit Singh v. Maya Ram [2006(4) RCR Civil 415] - The appellant should have been notified before proceeding in absence of representation - Case remanded to Trial Court for fresh adjudication - Notice to the parties mandatory when counsel withdraws without instructions. [Paras 5-8]

Jurisprudence on non-requirement of substantial questions of law for appeals elaborated in Pankajakshi (dead) through LRs &Ors. v. Chandrika &Ors. [2016 (6) SCC 157] referenced to clarify procedural requirements in the present context. [Para 9]

Decision - Remand of case to Trial Court - Given procedural improprieties and lack of proper notification to appellant following counsel's withdrawal, judgments and decrees of lower courts set aside - Matter remanded for fresh consideration in compliance with legal norms. [Para 10]

Property Law – Adverse Possession and Mortgage – Challenge against First Appellate Court’s decision that allowed the appeal of defendant-respondent No.1, reversing the favorable decree to the plaintiff-appellants from the Trial Court regarding ownership by adverse possession and mortgage rights – Supreme Court precedents and Full Bench decisions cited, confirming the mortgagor’s right to redemption remains irrespective of the duration unless extinguished by specific contract terms or court decree – No substantial question of law arises as the appellants failed to produce the original mortgage deed or specify its terms, thus, not substantiating their claim [Paras 1-13].

Mortgage Law – Usufructuary Mortgage – Applicability of Full Bench decisions on indefinite usufructuary mortgages where no redemption period is defined – Redemption rights upheld, emphasizing the principle “once a mortgage, always a mortgage,” thus making it redeemable at any time unless explicitly extinguished [Paras 10-12].

Evidence and Procedure – Rejection of appellants’ application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for additional evidence by citing its irrelevance to the crucial fact in question, i.e., the date or specifics of the alleged mortgage – Judicial discretion exercised in not remanding the case back due to lack of new evidence that could impact the outcome [Para 12].

Decision: Dismissal of the appeal due to the absence of merit and substantial legal questions, confirming the First Appellate Court’s ruling – No further proceedings required.

Revision under Article 227 – Challenging the Trial Court’s decision to dismiss the application for appointing a Local Commissioner to ascertain physical status of land – Trial court held that plaintiff-petitioner must prove his case without court’s assistance in gathering evidence – High Court upheld the trial court’s decision, stating it does not affect the rights of the parties and is thus not revisable [Paras 1-9].

Judicial Discretion – Appointment of Local Commissioner deemed discretionary – High Court reaffirmed that refusal to appoint does not prejudice any party’s rights, citing precedents in Pritam Singh v. Sunder Lal and Smt. Raksha Devi v. Madan Lal, establishing non-revisability of such orders [Para 5-6].

Evidence and Proof – Emphasis on petitioner’s responsibility to prove ownership and possession without relying on court-appointed Commissioner’s investigation – High Court dismisses the revision, underscoring the petitioner’s obligation to substantiate claims independently [Para 8].

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].

Arbitration Law – Arbitral Award – Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Appellant challenged arbitral award and Section 34 dismissal – Arbitral award partially allowed claims of claimant based on supplementary agreement – Appellant argued supplementary agreement required state approval, was not granted, and breaches were based on it – Arbitrator’s findings on readiness and willingness, delays, and defaults by both parties upheld – Court found no patent illegality or perversity – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-33]

Contract Law – Time of Essence – Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act – Arbitral award addressed whether time was essence of contract – Despite contractual stipulation, extended delivery period indicated time not essence – Supplementary agreement signed with mutual consent – Claimant’s failure to act per supplementary agreement noted – No basis to invalidate arbitrator's findings. [Paras 17-19]

Judicial Review – Limited Scope under Section 37 – Jurisdiction under Section 37 does not extend beyond Section 34 limitations – Court emphasized minimal judicial interference – Arbitrator’s construction of contract and evidence upheld unless patently illegal or perverse – Appeal did not meet threshold for interference. [Paras 26-32]

Decision: Held: Appeal dismissed – No interference with arbitral award or Section 34 order warranted – Findings of arbitral tribunal supported by evidence and contractual terms – No patent error or illegality established. [Para 33]

Criminal Law - Joinder of Additional Accused - Criminal Law – Appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 – High Court’s Dismissal of Appeal Challenging Addition of Accused under Section 319 of Cr.P.C – Court upheld Trial Court’s Order Adding Accused Based on Eyewitness Testimony – Plea of Alibi Considered and Rejected – Appellant’s Presence and Involvement Established through Multiple Witness Statements and CCTV Footage Identification – No Illegality or Perversity Found in Trial Court’s Order – Appeal Dismissed. [Paras 1-15]

Section 319 Cr.P.C – Application and Scope – Supreme Court Guidelines Reiterated – Power to Add Accused should be Exercised Sparingly and with Higher Degree of Satisfaction – Evidence Before Court Must be Strong and Reliable, Leading to Conviction if Unrebutted – Court Emphasized Proper Scrutiny of Evidence before Adding Accused under Section 319. [Paras 7-11]

Plea of Alibi – Burden of Proof – High Threshold Required to Prove Alibi – Evidence must Exclude Possibility of Presence at Crime Scene – Mere Probable Presence Elsewhere Insufficient – Accused’s Alibi Unsupported by Corroborative Evidence, thus Rejected by Court. [Paras 4, 6, 9]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Held – Appeal is Dismissed Based on Strong Evidence Against Appellant – Eyewitness Testimony and CCTV Identification Corroborated by Multiple Witness Statements – No Fault in Trial Court’s Decision to Add Appellant as Accused – Trial Court’s Order Affirmed. [Para 15]

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 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]