Constitution of India – Article 226 – Abuse of Writ Jurisdiction – Collateral Challenge to Contempt Proceedings – Petitioners challenged spot verification reports and sought to render contempt court order directing payment of compensation infructuous – Judgment dated 19.03.2015 directing joint verification and payment of rent had already attained finality – Verification completed and compensation assessed and forwarded to Ministry of Defence – Writ petition filed only after contempt court directed compliance – Held: Petition is a belated attempt to circumvent and frustrate binding judicial orders and is not maintainable under Article 226 [Paras 14–16, 26–28].

Finality of Litigation – Judicial Orders Attaining Finality – Once judgment directing joint verification and compensation attained finality and was not challenged, issues concluded therein cannot be reopened through subsequent writ proceedings – Permitting collateral challenge would defeat doctrine of finality and render judicial determinations uncertain – Held: Parties cannot reopen concluded issues after several years, especially after contempt proceedings are initiated for enforcement [Paras 22–23].

Contempt Proceedings – Attempt to Avoid Compliance – Petitioners filed writ petition after contempt court ordered deposit of ₹2,16,81,261/- as assessed rental compensation for landowners whose lands were occupied by security forces between 01.09.1986 and 09.09.2008 – Court held filing of writ petition at this stage clearly intended to delay and defeat compliance with earlier judicial orders – Such conduct undermines authority of courts and administration of justice [Paras 16, 24–25, 31].

Writ Jurisdiction – Clean Hands Doctrine – Litigant invoking equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 must approach court with clean hands, clean mind and full disclosure of facts – Courts must refuse relief where proceedings are initiated to abuse judicial process or mislead the court – Suppression of material facts or filing misconceived petitions amounts to abuse of process [Paras 17–21, 29].

Costs – Abuse of Judicial Process by State Authorities – Petition filed by government authorities long after finalization of verification and assessment, and only after contempt directions – Such conduct caused prolonged deprivation of compensation to landowners and unnecessary litigation – Held: Exemplary costs justified to deter misuse of judicial process [Paras 27, 32].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed at motion stage – Court held petition to be frivolous and an abuse of judicial process – Petitioners directed to deposit costs of ₹50,000 with the High Court Legal Services Committee within 10 days – Amount to be reimbursed from salary of erring official (Defence Estates Officer, Guwahati Circle).

Civil Law – Substitution of Legal Representatives – Order 22 Rule 3 CPC – Will Under Adjudication – Plaintiff Smt. Preeto Devi filed a suit for vacant possession against her son Balwinder Singh – During pendency of the suit, plaintiff expired on 22.10.2024 – Application filed under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC seeking substitution of Babhishan Singh, his wife Urmila Devi and two grandsons on the basis of a Will dated 05.03.2020 – Validity of the said Will already under challenge by the defendant before the same court in separate proceedings – Trial Court partly allowed the application directing substitution of Babhishan Singh as legal representative but rejected substitution of Urmila Devi, Udey Pathania and Nahar Pathania – Held: All sons of the deceased are necessary and proper parties and are required to be arrayed in the proceedings – Validity of the Will cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC – No infirmity in the order of the Trial Court – Petition dismissed [Paras 11-15].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Order of the learned Civil Judge, Indora, dated 19.09.2025 upheld.

Preventive Detention – Public Safety Act – Law and Order vis-à-vis Public Order – Bovine Smuggling – Petitioner detained under Section 8(1)(a) of the J&K Public Safety Act by order dated 11.07.2025 on the basis of two FIRs and three unverified Daily Diary Entries alleging habitual bovine smuggling – One FIR already disposed of and the other (FIR No. 0049/2025 dated 03.05.2025) pending investigation – Petitioner not directly involved in the pending FIR as admitted by the Detaining Authority – Held: Alleged activities of bovine smuggling constitute infractions of law and order and do not rise to the level of acts prejudicial to public order as defined under Section 8(3) of the Act – Detention order quashed [Paras 10-19].

Public Order – Distinction from Law and Order – Acts affecting individuals or isolated criminal conduct cannot be equated with disturbance of public order – Public order is the even tempo of life of the community – Only where the disturbance subverts the community at large does it amount to a public order problem – Mere infraction of law leads to disorder but not necessarily public disorder [Paras 13-16].

Preventive Detention – Proximity – Live Link – Detention order dated 11.07.2025 passed about two months after the last alleged incident of 03.05.2025 – Three Daily Diary Entries unverified and uncorroborated – No explanation by Detaining Authority for the delay – Undue and unreasonable gap between alleged activities and passing of detention order snaps the live link – Detaining Authority also failed to address why normal criminal law was inadequate and did not challenge the bail granted to the petitioner – Non-application of mind established [Paras 19-24].

Preventive Detention – Subjective Satisfaction – Misuse of Power – Preventive detention is an exception to the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 – Detention orders must be passed with great care and caution, only in cases of genuine and inevitable necessity – Provisions of Article 22(5) require proper communication of grounds, opportunity to make representation and application of mind – Impugned order is the outcome of non-application of mind and misuse of powers [Paras 25-27].

Decision: Petition allowed – Detention order No. 08-PSA-2025 dated 11.07.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Udhampur, quashed – Petitioner directed to be released forthwith from preventive detention.

Forest Rights – Other Traditional Forest Dwellers – Section 2(o), Forest Rights Act, 2006 – Burden of Proof – Appellants claimed rights over Reserved Forest land to the extent of 291.60 acres in Suriyur Village, Salem, contending that their ancestors were in possession and cultivation thereof for more than 75 years – District Level Committee rejected the claim finding no documents produced to prove possession and enjoyment for 75 years as required under the Act – Writ Court upheld the rejection – Held: Appellants failed to establish essential ingredients under the Act – Appeal dismissed [Paras 3-12].

Definition – "Other Traditional Forest Dwellers" – Three Generations – Section 2(o) of the Act, 2006 requires that the claimant must have been primarily residing in and depending on the forest land for bona fide livelihood needs for at least three generations prior to 13.12.2005 – Explanation to Section 2(o) defines "generation" as a period of 25 years, thus requiring continuous residence and dependence for 75 years – Appellants admittedly not residing in the subject land and living at addresses outside the Reserved Forest – Aadhar cards of appellants showed different addresses – Not established that appellants solely depend on forest produce for bona fide livelihood needs [Paras 8-11].

Reserved Forest – Encroachment – Jarugumalai Forest Block notified as Reserved Forest under Section 16 of the Madras Forest Act, 1882 with effect from 15.03.1926 – Appellants made attempts to encroach upon the Reserved Forest from 1980 – Forest Department filed cases against them for trespass – All encroachers evicted and entire land restored to Forest Department – Appellants cannot claim rights as traditional forest dwellers merely on account of attempted encroachment and cultivation of commercial nature [Paras 6, 10].

Judicial Review – Article 226 – Scope – Power of judicial review is to ensure that the decision-making process of the competent authority is in consonance with the provisions of statutes and rules, and not to review the merits of the decision itself – In the present case, procedures were followed scrupulously by the District Level Committee with due opportunity to parties – No interference warranted [Para 13].

Decision: Writ Appeal dismissed – No costs.

Arbitration – Section 9 Jurisdiction – Foreign Awards – Availability After Filing Part II Petition – Petitioner filed Section 9 petition seeking interim protection to secure foreign award amount pending parallel enforcement petition under Part II – Respondent contended Section 9 unavailable once Part II petition filed as enforcement and execution rolled up making terms interchangeable – Relied on Centrient holding Section 9 unavailable after execution proceedings filed – Court examined interplay of Section 9(1), Section 2(2), Section 36 and Part II provisions – Held: Section 2(2) explicitly extends Section 9 to foreign awards even if arbitration outside India – Domestic award automatically becomes decree upon expiry of Section 34 challenge period – Foreign award requires positive affirmation by Part II Court under Section 49 before becoming decree – Part II petition first seeks recognition, only thereafter translates to execution upon decree status conferred – Parliament consciously did not impose time limit on Section 9 for foreign awards while extending its scope – Until foreign award becomes decree under Section 49, Section 9 jurisdiction continues – Centrient distinguished as relating to domestic award where execution proceedings commenced – No absurd consequence in concurrent Section 9 and Part II jurisdictions – Legislative purpose to protect award-creditor cannot be ignored – Objection to jurisdiction dismissed [Paras 1-29].

Statutory Interpretation – Section 9 and Part II Interplay – Positive Affirmation Requirement – Court examined distinction between enforcement mechanism for domestic awards under Section 36 and foreign awards under Part II – Section 36 automatically treats domestic award as decree upon expiry of Section 34 period unless stayed – Foreign award under Part II requires award-creditor to apply with evidence under Section 47, pass muster through Section 48 conditions, and obtain positive satisfaction of Part II Court under Section 49 before becoming decree – Held: Triggering point for enforcement under Section 36 is automatic decree status upon expiry of challenge period – Triggering point for foreign award is positive affirmation by Part II Court under Section 49 declaring award enforceable – Further validation necessary for Indian Courts to treat foreign award as decree – Parliament left Section 9 linkage to Section 36 undisturbed when extending Section 9 to foreign awards via Section 2(2) proviso inserted in 2015 – Reasonable and logical given distinction in how domestic and foreign awards become decrees – No caveat imposed on Section 9 operation for foreign awards despite conscious legislative extension [Paras 14-23].

Interim Protection – Foreign Award Creditor – Asset Protection Pending Recognition – Petitioner sought protection to prevent dissipation of assets pending Part II recognition proceedings – Respondent argued concurrent Section 9 and Part II jurisdiction would create schematic anomaly – Court examined legislative scheme and concurrent jurisdictions – Held: Concurrent jurisdictions of Section 9 and Section 17 operated until Section 9(3) inserted requiring ordinary deference to Section 17 unless inefficacious – No similar provision limiting Section 9 when Part II petition filed – Not for Court to read into statutory scheme and refuse jurisdiction absent specific prohibition – Part II petition seeks recognition first, translates to execution only after decree status under Section 49 – Until that stage, Section 9 words "but before it is enforced in accordance with section 36" do not bar jurisdiction – After foreign award becomes decree, execution proceedings commence without new filing and Section 9 refrain appropriate – Larger legislative purpose of Section 9 to protect award-creditor and explicit scope of Section 2(2) extending Section 9 to foreign awards cannot be ignored – Direction issued to deposit award amount and disclose assets [Paras 24-30].

Precedent – Distinguishing Domestic from Foreign Award Cases – Respondent relied on Centrient holding Section 9 unavailable once execution proceedings filed for domestic award – Court distinguished precedent – Held: Centrient examined phrase "but before it is enforced in accordance with Section 36" in Section 9(1) – Found once Section 34 challenge period expired, arbitral award enforceable as decree – On facts, award-creditor had initiated execution proceedings – Held recourse to Section 9 unavailable once award capable of enforcement as decree and execution steps initiated – Present case involves foreign award requiring positive recognition under Part II – Centrient relates to domestic award where execution proceedings actually commenced – Factually and legally distinguishable – Fuerst Day Lawson and LMJ International observations not relevant to denude Section 9 jurisdiction to protect creditor from asset dissipation [Paras 12, 28].

Legislative Intent – Amendment in 2015 – Extension of Section 9 to Foreign Awards – Court examined proviso to Section 2(2) inserted with effect from 23.10.2015 extending Section 9 to international commercial arbitration and foreign awards – Parliament renumbered existing Section 9 as Section 9(1) and added new sub-sections – Did not include reference to Part II to impose time limit on Section 9 for foreign awards – Existing provision linking to enforcement under Section 36 left undisturbed – Held: Apparently reasonable and logical given distinction between how domestic and foreign awards become decrees – No caveat to Section 9 operation even while Parliament conscious in extending Section 9 to foreign awards – Cannot infer and presume time limit lightly – Point is judicial inference based on statutory scheme attempting to import domestic award scheme to foreign awards – Without positive statutory choice imposing time limit, plain language of Section 9 cannot be ignored by extrapolating Section 36 reference to read unstated Part II reference [Paras 23-25].

Decision: Section 9 Petition disposed of with directions - Objection to jurisdiction dismissed - Respondent directed to deposit USD 269,105.08 in Indian Rupee equivalent with Court Registry within four weeks - Pending deposit, respondent prohibited from alienating, encumbering or creating third-party interests in movable and immovable property except for generating disposal proceeds for deposit - Respondent to disclose on affidavit within two weeks detailed list of assets including bank accounts, assets sold in last two years, creditors and debtors, pending legal proceedings, and encumbered assets - Part II Petition for enforcement listed within two weeks.

Service Law – Removal from Service – Departmental Proceedings – Acquittal in Criminal Case – Honourable Acquittal versus Benefit of Doubt – Petitioner working as Assistant Sub Inspector removed from service vide order dated 07.08.2012 after departmental enquiry finding charges proved based on evidence of witnesses – Appellate authority rejected appeal vide order dated 20.06.2013 – Criminal case registered for offences under Sections 324, 326, 302, 201, 34 IPC wherein petitioner acquitted vide judgment dated 31.10.2017 – Review petition rejected vide Government Order dated 05.07.2023 – Tribunal re-appreciated evidence and dismissed original application – Petitioner contended acquittal was honourable acquittal not merely benefit of doubt – Relied on Ramlal vs State of Rajasthan – Held: Departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings stand on different footing – Mere acquittal by Criminal Court does not confer right to claim reinstatement – Only if charges, evidence, witnesses and circumstances identical or similar in both proceedings, matter requires different dimension – Acquittal merely on benefit of doubt as prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt cannot be equated with departmental proceedings to give benefit of acquittal – Proof required in criminal trial more onerous than departmental proceedings which requires preponderance of probabilities – Sessions Court acquitted petitioner as circumstantial evidence not proved beyond reasonable doubt without break in chain of circumstances – Acquittal not honourable acquittal – Ramlal and GM Tank distinguished on facts – No interference warranted [Paras 1-18].

Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Scope and Ambit – High Court Powers – Petitioner invoked supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 challenging Tribunal order – Court examined scope of Article 227 – Held: Article 227 deals with power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals by High Court – Object is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of entire machinery of justice – Power of interference to be kept to minimum to ensure wheel of justice does not halt and fountain of justice remains pure – High Court cannot exercise power like bull in china shop to correct all errors of judgment of court or tribunal acting within limits of jurisdiction – Correctional jurisdiction exercisable in cases of grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice – High Court cannot sit in appeal over findings recorded by lower court or tribunal – Supervisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct all errors – No interference under Article 227 unless High Court finds manifest error, palpably perverse or patently unreasonable reasoning, decision in direct conflict with settled principles of law, gross and manifest failure of justice or basic principles of natural justice flouted [Paras 9-15].

Evidence – Departmental Enquiry – Standard of Proof – Preponderance of Probabilities versus Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Enquiry Officer conducted detailed enquiry and based on evidence of witnesses found charges against petitioner proved – Sessions Court noted investigation not foolproof contributing to acquittal – Prosecution failed to prove charges due to several failures including non-examination of witness Ajithan examined as PW6 in oral enquiry who proved petitioner was resident of Quarters No.6 – Finger print expert recovered only finger print of second accused from scene – No direct evidence – Scientific evidence not supporting blood, teeth, gum belonged to deceased – Held: Settled legal position that in disciplinary proceedings preponderance of probabilities adequate as against rigorous standard of beyond reasonable doubt required in criminal proceedings – Protection of Rule 10 under KPDIP&A Rules available to accused only when matter sub judice – Criminal case charged before Sessions Court much after disciplinary proceedings finalized – Petitioner cannot get benefit of Rule 10 – Dereliction of duty and misconduct proved in PR Minutes – Petitioner availed all opportunities to defend in disciplinary proceedings, appeal and review petitions [Paras 5-8, 10-12].

Precedent – Distinguishing Cases – Ramlal and GM Tank – Petitioner relied on Ramlal vs State of Rajasthan holding where charge stood disproved by prosecution evidence and charges, evidence, witnesses and circumstances identical, disciplinary proceedings orders cannot stand – Also relied on GM Tank vs State of Gujarat holding where departmental and criminal proceedings based on identical similar set of facts and honourable acquittal, dismissal order liable to be set aside – Court examined applicability – Held: In Ramlal, delinquent altered date of birth in mark list to project majority at recruitment – Initially punished, acquittal in appeal – Charges disproved not merely not proved – In GM Tank, departmental and criminal proceedings based on identical set of facts relating to disproportionate income accumulation – Same witnesses examined in both – Honourable acquittal after regular trial on hot contest – Present case factually different – Acquittal on benefit of doubt as circumstantial evidence not proved beyond reasonable doubt – Not honourable acquittal – Charges in departmental proceedings related to dereliction of duty and misconduct, not criminal case per se – Witness examined in departmental enquiry not arrayed in criminal case – Facts and circumstances different – Precedents not applicable [Paras 16-18].

Decision: Original petition dismissed – Tribunal order dated 28.11.2025 in OA No.2162 of 2023 upheld – No ground to hold Tribunal order perverse or patently illegal warranting interference in supervisory jurisdiction – Acquittal in criminal case not honourable acquittal but benefit of doubt – Departmental and criminal proceedings on different footing – Charges, evidence and circumstances not identical – Standard of proof different – Preponderance of probabilities satisfied in departmental proceedings.

Criminal Procedure – Proclaimed Person vs. Proclaimed Offender – Section 82(4) CrPC – NDPS Offences – Petitioner granted bail in NDPS case, failed to appear on one date due to miscommunication, bail cancelled, non-bailable warrants issued, proclamation effected on 13.02.2025 and petitioner declared proclaimed offender on 17.03.2025 – Held: Declaration as proclaimed offender under Section 82(4) CrPC is permissible only in respect of offences specified therein, which are exclusively certain provisions of the IPC – Offences under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act do not find mention in Section 82(4) CrPC – Petitioner could only have been declared a proclaimed person under Section 82(1) CrPC and not a proclaimed offender – Impugned order set aside to that extent [Paras 10-12].

Proclaimed Person and Proclaimed Offender – Distinction – There is a stark distinction between a proclaimed person under Section 82(1) CrPC and a proclaimed offender under Section 82(4) CrPC – All persons absconding or concealing themselves to evade arrest can be proclaimed persons, but only those accused of specified IPC offences can be declared proclaimed offenders – The difference in punishment under Section 174-A IPC reflects this distinction: up to three years for a proclaimed person and up to seven years for a proclaimed offender – Sections 83 to 86 CrPC dealing with attachment of property apply to proclaimed persons and do not deal with proclaimed offenders [Para 11].

Proclamation – Mandatory Requirements – Section 82(1) CrPC – Proclamation must specify a date and place for appearance of the accused and such date must not be less than 30 clear days from the date of publication – In the present case, proclamation effected on 13.02.2025 and case merely adjourned to 17.03.2025 for recording statement of serving official – Mandatory requirement of fixing date of appearance beyond 30 clear days from date of publication not complied with – Adjournment cannot cure the inherent defect in proclamation proceedings – Fresh proclamation required to be issued in accordance with law – Proclamation proceedings vitiated [Paras 13-18].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 17.03.2025 set aside to the extent of declaring petitioner as proclaimed offender – Petitioner directed to surrender before Trial Court/Duty Magistrate within two weeks subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- as costs to Poor Patients Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh – Petitioner to furnish fresh bail and surety bonds and undertaking to appear regularly – Order to be treated as vacated if petitioner fails to appear within stipulated period [Paras 20-22].

Criminal Trial – Chemical Analyst Reports – DNA Reports – Scientific Experts Examination – Fair Trial – Accused No.1 convicted for brutal sexual assault and murder of 6-year-old girl and sentenced to death based on circumstantial evidence including CA reports and DNA profiles – 12 CA reports marked as Exhibit-166 collectively during examination-in-chief of investigating officer without summoning chemical analysers – No copies provided to accused, no opportunity for cross-examination – Trial Court relied heavily on CA reports in paragraphs 143 onwards to hold against accused – Trial Court observed that since accused did not move requisition for examining chemical analysers, reports admitted directly without examining analysers – Accused filed application invoking Sections 408 and 432 read with Section 329 BNSS seeking summoning of chemical analysers for cross-examination – Held: Sessions Court committed grave error in admitting CA reports without examining chemical analysers – Such witnesses ought to be court witnesses even if prosecution fails in duty to summon crucial witnesses – Whole purpose of trial is to ascertain truth and all steps to unearth truth must be taken by Court even if prosecution remiss in duty – Failure to summon scientific experts led to failure of justice vitiating trial – Fair opportunity to accused to defend absolutely imperative and non-negotiable in capital punishment case – Impugned judgment set aside and matter remanded to Sessions Court for limited purpose of examining chemical analysers with ancillary directions [Paras 1-25].

Section 313 CrPC – Statement of Accused – Joint Recording Vitiated – Separate Statements Required – Trial Court recorded statement under Section 313 CrPC of both accused persons jointly putting questions and eliciting responses together – Only fact of receiving 12 CA reports marked as Exhibit-166 put as incriminating circumstance without details of reports – Accused sought direction for recording fresh statement under Section 313 CrPC after additional evidence – Held: Entire statement under Section 313 CrPC vitiated as questions put jointly to both accused which could not have been done – Matter being remanded for examining chemical analysers, entire statement under Section 313 CrPC to be recorded afresh with separate statements for two accused – Will include further material coming on record pursuant to examination of chemical analysers [Paras 2, 10, 13, 22-25].

Remand – Limited Purpose – Evidence Already Recorded Not Wiped Out – Court set aside trial court judgment remanding matter for examining scientific experts connected with CA reports and DNA reports – Examined scope of remand – Held: Following Supreme Court in Irfan alias Bhayu Mevati vs State of Madhya Pradesh, remand only to limited extent of examining witnesses concerning CA reports and DNA reports with ancillary directions – Trial not to be conducted de novo by wiping out evidence already on record – Remaining evidence that came on record shall remain as it is – Sessions Court to proceed without being influenced by observations in High Court order – Complete process within four months [Paras 16-18, 25].

Bail – Accused Convicted for Bailable Offences – Substantial Period Undergone – Matter Remanded – Accused No.2 convicted under Section 201 IPC and Section 21 POCSO Act, both bailable offences – Sentenced to 7 years imprisonment under Section 201 IPC and 6 months under Section 21 POCSO Act – Already suffered incarceration for 3 years 7 months indicating substantial period of sentence undergone – Matter remanded to Sessions Court would consume time – Continued custody would mean further incarceration – Held: Accused No.2 released on bail pending remanded proceedings – PR Bond of Rs.25,000 with surety – Remain present on all dates before Sessions Court – Communicate contact numbers and residential address – Cooperate with proceedings for expeditious completion [Paras 14-15, 23-25].

Duty of Court – Ascertaining Truth – Court Witnesses – Scientific Experts – Prosecution relied on CA reports including serology and DNA profiles – Chemical analysers not summoned by prosecution – Trial Court admitted reports without examining analysers observing accused did not move requisition – Held: Duty of all persons in authority from investigation stage to ensure every bit of material brought on record to assist Court in ascertaining truth – Anything short of that vitiates entire process – Scientific experts ought to be court witnesses even if prosecution fails in duty to summon crucial witnesses – Court must take all steps in direction of unearthing truth even if prosecution remiss and accused not shown awareness at relevant time – Remand to Sessions Court to summon scientific experts as court witnesses with proper opportunity of examination to prosecution and defence in that order [Paras 20-21, 25].

Supreme Court Directions – Application to Remanded Trial – Sessions Court directed to summon scientific experts associated with preparation and issuance of CA reports and DNA reports with entire supporting material – Complete laboratory documentation to be called and supplied to accused including case acceptance forms, registers, worksheets, bench notes, chain of custody, test results, equipment logbooks, calibration records, electropherograms, electronic raw data, procedure manuals, kit details, validation studies, quality control documentation – Accused to be given sufficient opportunity to cross-examine summoned witnesses – After testimony recorded, accused to be questioned under Section 313 CrPC afresh in context of fresh evidence – Fair opportunity of leading defence evidence – Sessions Court to re-hear arguments and decide case afresh as per law – Entire process to be completed expeditiously preferably within four months [Paras 7, 16, 25].

Decision: Interim Application No.4190 of 2025 allowed - Impugned judgment dated 22.03.2024 of Sessions Court in Special Sessions Case No.176 of 2023 quashed and set aside - Matter remanded to Sessions Court for limited purpose of summoning chemical analysers and assistant chemical analysers for cross-examination - Complete laboratory documentation to be called and supplied to accused - Entire statement under Section 313 CrPC to be recorded afresh with separate statements for both accused - Accused No.2 released on bail on conditions - Sessions Court to complete proceedings expeditiously preferably within four months from 07.04.2026 - Confirmation Case No.3 of 2024 and Criminal Appeal Nos.367 of 2024 and 1262 of 2024 disposed of.

Civil Law – Adverse Possession – Declaration of Title – Suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction over suit tanks claimed to have been excavated by plaintiff's ancestor Trilochan Behera – Trial Court decreed the suit holding plaintiff and his predecessors in uninterrupted possession for more than statutory period – First Appellate Court reversed, dismissing suit for non-service of notice under Section 80(1) CPC and non-joinder of necessary parties – High Court holds First Appellate Court erred on both counts – Second Appeal allowed, trial court decree restored [Paras 1–16].

"Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Dispenses with Prior Notice – First Appellate Court Erred"

Notice – Section 80 CPC – Suit Against Government – Leave Granted by Trial Court – Trial Court on 15.05.1982 granted leave to the plaintiff to institute the suit without prior notice under Section 80(2) CPC – First Appellate Court dismissed suit holding notice under Section 80(1) not served, overlooking the leave already granted – Held: Once leave under Section 80(2) is granted, the requirement of prior notice under Section 80(1) stands dispensed with – Dismissal on that ground suffers from error apparent on the face of the record [Para 12].

"Non-Joinder Cannot Be Raised at Appellate Stage by Party Who Remained Inactive at Trial"

Non-Joinder of Necessary Parties – Order I Rule 9 and Rule 13 CPC – Defendant No.3 set ex parte before trial court – Petition for impleadment filed by Biswamber Behera, Brajamohan Behera and Defendant No.3 dismissed as not pressed on 16.09.1983 – No issue on non-joinder framed by trial court – No specific point raised before First Appellate Court either – Held: Objection as to non-joinder must be taken at the earliest opportunity and before settlement of issues – Permitting a party who remained inactive at trial to raise the plea at appellate stage would amount to defeating the decree on a technical ground neither pressed nor adjudicated earlier [Paras 13–14].

"Doctrine of Waiver and Acquiescence – Party Cannot Take Advantage of Own Default"

Waiver – Acquiescence – Defendant No.3 entered appearance before trial court but neither filed written statement nor contested the suit and was set ex parte – Having consciously abstained from participation, defendant No.3 deemed to have waived right to object – A party cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own default or omission – Plea of non-joinder not maintainable at appellate stage merely because trial court judgment was adverse [Para 14].

"Exclusive Adverse Possession – Co-Sharers Not Necessary Parties When Plaintiff Claims Independent Title Against State"

Adverse Possession – Necessary Parties – Where plaintiff asserts exclusive hostile possession against the State and perfection of title by lapse of statutory period, the foundation of the suit is such exclusive possession – Unless it is demonstrated that no effective decree could be passed in their absence, co-sharers are not necessary parties – Suit cannot be held bad for non-joinder on that basis alone [Para 13].

Decision: Second Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of First Appellate Court set aside – Judgment and decree of trial court confirmed – No order as to costs.