Criminal Law - Probation of Offenders - Sections 360 and 361 Cr.P.C. - Conditions for Release on Probation - Petitioners convicted under Section 292 IPC and Sections 63 and 68-A of the Copyright Act for preparing and selling obscene video compact discs - Trial Court and Appellate Court failed to consider release on probation despite compliance with conditions under Section 360 Cr.P.C. - Offenders without previous convictions eligible for probation based on age, character, and circumstances - Conviction upheld, substantive sentence of imprisonment set aside - Petitioners released on probation for one year. [Paras 25, 26, 27]

Probation of Offenders - Consideration by Courts - Mandate under Sections 360 and 361 Cr.P.C. - Courts must consider age, character, antecedents of offender, and offense circumstances - Failure to consider probation amounts to oversight of mandatory provisions - Petitioners to be released on probation with conditions of good behavior and periodic reporting. [Paras 25, 26]

Court’s Reasoning - Legal Precedents - Supreme Court and High Court precedents mandate considering probation for eligible offenders - Reference to Chandreshwar Sharma v. State of Bihar (2000) 9 SCC 245, highlighting mandatory nature of considering probation and recording reasons if denied - Similar view taken in Akhtar v. State of Haryana 2013(8) RCR (Criminal) 2992 - Petitioners' prolonged trial and lack of previous convictions considered. [Paras 22, 23, 24]

Decision:

The conviction of the petitioners is upheld. However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is set aside. The petitioners are ordered to be released on probation for one year, subject to executing bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda, undertaking to maintain peace and good behavior for the said period and to appear and receive the sentence as and when called upon to do so in case of any bond condition violations.

Family Law - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13-B - Mutual Divorce - Dismissal for Non-Prosecution - Appeal and Condonation of Delay - Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act does not permit an appeal against an order dismissing a petition for non-prosecution under Order IX Rule 8 of the CPC - Appellant must seek remedy through Order IX Rule 9 CPC for setting aside the dismissal, not through an appeal under Section 28 - Appeal dismissed as not maintainable. [Paras 7, 8, 14]

Civil Procedure - Appeal vs. Application for Setting Aside Dismissal - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order IX Rule 8 and 9 - Orders dismissing a suit for non-prosecution (Order IX Rule 8) can be contested by applying to set aside the dismissal (Order IX Rule 9) - Appeals under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act only lie against decrees or specific orders, not orders of dismissal for non-prosecution - Appellant directed to seek remedy under Order IX Rule 9 CPC. [Paras 8, 10, 15]

Limitation and Condonation - Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5, Article 122 - Application for setting aside dismissal under Order IX Rule 9 must be filed within one month - Delayed appeals or applications must show sufficient cause for condonation - In the present case, the appellant did not follow proper procedure and delayed filing the application - Proper recourse is to file an application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC with a request for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. [Paras 13, 14]

Decision:

The appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. The order dismissing the mutual divorce petition for non-prosecution cannot be challenged under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The appellant is advised to file an appropriate application under Order IX Rule 9 of the CPC, along with an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, before the trial court.

Service Law - Interest on Delayed Gratuity - Rule 2.2 (c)(1), Rule 6.16 AA(9) of Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1970 - Employee entitled to death-cum-retirement gratuity upon the conclusion of departmental or judicial proceedings - Gratuity payable from the date of the final order concluding proceedings - Respondent entitled to interest from the date of acquittal till the actual disbursement of gratuity. [Paras 7, 9]

Gratuity Payment - Proceedings Impact on Gratuity - Rule 2.2 (c)(1) specifies entitlement to gratuity on the conclusion of proceedings - Rule 6.16 AA(9) applies to routine cases of gratuity entitlement and prescribes a three-month period for payment - In cases involving proceedings, gratuity falls due on the conclusion of proceedings as per Rule 2.2 (c)(1). [Paras 7, 8]

Court’s Analysis - Applicability of Rules and Precedents - Respondent acquitted on 17.11.2014, thus entitled to gratuity from this date - Interest on delayed gratuity payment applicable from the date of acquittal till actual payment - Lower courts' modification of interest period upheld, aligned with the rules and precedents. [Paras 8, 9, 10, 11]

Decision: The appeal is partly allowed. The respondent is entitled to interest at 9% per annum from the date of his acquittal (17.11.2014) till the date of actual disbursement of the gratuity amount. The interest amount difference is to be calculated and released to the respondent within one month.

Service Law - Extension in Service - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Extension not a matter of right - The petitioner's post as Work Mistry declared surplus - Government's 2012 instructions restrict extension where no work exists - The government rightly denied the extension to avoid paying employees without assigning work - Petition dismissed. [Paras 6, 8, 9]

Policy on Extension - Government's Authority - The Punjab government's instructions dated 26.11.2012 clarify that extensions are not granted where no work exists or where the service cadre is diminishing - Petitioner sought extension based on rules amended on 08.10.2012, but instructions on 26.11.2012 supersede this, focusing on operational need and budget efficiency. [Paras 6, 7, 8]

Court's Reasoning - Validity of Government’s Decision - The post of Work Mistry already declared surplus - Government's decision in line with policy to avoid unnecessary financial burden - Extension denied due to lack of work aligns with established rules and conditions - The court found no grounds to challenge the decision. [Paras 8, 9]

Decision:

The writ petition is dismissed. The government’s order dated 29.01.2019, denying the petitioner’s request for an extension in service, is upheld as it conforms with the government's policy on managing surplus posts and avoiding non-essential expenses.

Landlord-Tenant Relationship - Bona Fide Requirement - Section 13 of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Eviction petition filed by landlady claiming shop needed for son's business - Son appeared as witness and attorney, cross-examined by tenant - Held, usually landlord must give evidence personally; exception where affairs managed by attorney who is a close family member - Attorney's (son's) evidence corroborated landlady's bona fide need claim - Eviction order upheld - Revision petition dismissed. [Paras 21, 22, 25]

Legal Procedure - Evidence by Attorney - Attorney's Competence to Testify - Supreme Court precedent permits attorney to testify if closely managing affairs - Landlady's son as attorney substantiated claim of bona fide necessity for business expansion - Evidence supported by affidavit - Attorney competent to depose on behalf of landlady in bona fide necessity claims. [Paras 20, 21]

Court's Analysis - Substantive Need vs. Wish - Examination of necessity - Landlady's son required premises for expanding existing business - Court emphasized son's current business in same building - Eviction sought for genuine need, not mere wish - Objections regarding non-filing of ejectment for other shops dismissed as non-essential. [Paras 16, 17, 22, 23]

Decision:

The revision petition is dismissed. The orders of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority directing eviction of the petitioners from the premises in question are upheld. The court found no infirmity in the reasoning provided by the lower courts, which were based on cogent and valid grounds of bona fide necessity.

Jurisdiction of Civil Courts - Section 9 of Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953 - Civil Court's Jurisdiction in Eviction of Tenant - Appellant claimed adverse possession and status as tenant (gair marusi) - Held, Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain suits involving tenants defined under Section 9 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act - Remedy lies with revenue authorities for eviction - Appellant's adverse possession claim rejected - Respondent to seek remedy through appropriate legal channels. [Paras 9, 10]

Adverse Possession and Tenant Status - Plaintiff sought possession based on purchase from the previous owner - Defendants claimed long-term possession and adverse possession - Trial Court ruled in favor of adverse possession; Lower Appellate Court reversed based on tenant status (gair marusi) - Held, appellant did not acquire title through adverse possession - Status of tenant without payment of rent falls under specific tenancy laws - Suit not maintainable in Civil Court. [Paras 5, 6]

Court's Analysis - Revenue Record Examination - The appellant listed as gair marusi (tenant without payment of rent) in revenue records - Jurisdiction for eviction lies with revenue authorities, not Civil Court - Reference to Shyam Lal v. Deepa Dass Chela Ram Chela Garib Dass case on tenancy jurisdiction. [Paras 6, 9]

Decision:

The regular second appeal is dismissed. The suit for possession is not maintainable in Civil Court due to the appellant's status as gair marusi. The respondent-plaintiff is advised to seek eviction through the appropriate legal process under the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953.

SARFAESI Act - Premature Challenge - Sections 13(2), 13(3A), 13(4), 17 - Borrower’s challenge to recovery notice and rejection of objections under Section 13(3A) deemed premature - SARFAESI Act specifies that borrower can appeal under Section 17 only after measures under Section 13(4) are taken - Petition dismissed as the respondent had not taken action under Section 13(4) at the time of filing the petition. [Para 10]

Legal Framework - Enforcement of Security Interest - Section 13(2) - Lender’s right to demand repayment upon default and classify debt as non-performing asset - Borrower’s objections under Section 13(3A) do not immediately allow for judicial review under Section 17 - Legal procedure requires actions under Section 13(4) to be taken first. [Paras 8, 9]

Court’s Reasoning - Statutory Compliance and Borrower Rights - The process under SARFAESI Act must be strictly followed - Borrowers’ right to appeal under Section 17 arises only after secured creditors take measures under Section 13(4) - Interim orders rejecting objections do not provide grounds for judicial review - Petitioners to seek remedies post actions under Section 13(4). [Para 10]

Decision: The writ petition is dismissed. Petitioners' objections to recovery notices under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and the challenge to the rejection of these objections are premature. Petitioners may seek remedies under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act if and when actions are taken under Section 13(4).

Property Law - Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary Property - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 34 - Plaintiff claims property as Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary Property - Plaintiff selectively identified one property as coparcenary, ignoring others - Held, selective allegations not permissible - Plaintiff must disclose all properties forming part of coparcenary - Admission of receipt of 10-12 acres of land and a residential property by the plaintiff indicated a division of property by the deceased during his lifetime - Suit dismissed. [Paras 10, 11]

Succession Law - Validity of Will - Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 63(c) - Whether a particular form of attestation of a registered will is required - Held, testator must sign before attesting witnesses, but the exact sequence is flexible - All parties present at the same time when the will was signed - No specific form of attestation mandated - Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court's reliance on Santlal v. Kamla Prasad (1951) regarding attestation sequence not applicable - Will held valid. [Paras 12, 13, 14, 17]

Court's Analysis - Examination of Evidence - Plaintiff’s claim filed after 25 years of the father's death and subsequent transfer of property by the mother questioned - Registered will executed by the father, not challenged for 25 years, upheld - Arguments on improper attestation dismissed as the procedural requirements were substantially met. [Paras 14, 15, 17]

Decision:

The regular second appeal is dismissed. The findings of the trial court and first appellate court are upheld. The will executed by the deceased and the subsequent transfer of property are valid, and the plaintiff's selective claim over one property as coparcenary without addressing others is not tenable.

Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order 6 Rule 17 CPC - Amendment in the written statement cannot be filed under the guise of responding to an amended plaint - The correct procedure requires a specific application for amendment indicating the changes to be made - Held, amendment to the written statement must follow a formal application process as stipulated by Order 6 Rule 17. [Paras 1, 7, 13]

Court’s Authority - Order 6 Rule 17 and Section 151 CPC - Proper procedure for amending pleadings must be adhered to - Respondents filed an amended written statement altering the original without a proper application - Trial court erred in dismissing the petitioners' application to reject this amended written statement - Revision petition allowed, trial court’s order set aside. [Paras 8, 9, 14]

Legal Precedents - Gurdial Singh’s Case - Supreme Court has clarified that even consequential amendments require a proper application - Observations in Mahant Kapil Dev’s case considered obiter dicta - Trial court's reliance on Mahant Kapil Dev’s case misplaced - Clear statutory provision mandates a formal application for amendments. [Paras 10, 11, 12]

Decision:

The revision petition is allowed. The impugned order of the trial court dated 25.08.2015 is set aside. The respondents are directed to move an appropriate application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for any amendments to their written statement. The trial court will consider such an application on its merits and decide expeditiously in accordance with the Supreme Court's guidance in Gurdial Singh’s case.