Evidence Law - Secondary Evidence - Sections 63 and 65 of Evidence Act - Entries in Civil Court register not considered secondary evidence of judgments and decree - Registers only contain net results, not verbatim contents - Secondary evidence includes certified copies, copies made from the original, or oral accounts by someone who has seen the original - Application to prove judgments and decree sheets from register entries dismissed - Revision petition dismissed. [Paras 1, 6]

Legal Principle - Definition of Secondary Evidence - Section 63 of Evidence Act - Certified copies, mechanical copies, compared copies, counterparts, and oral accounts by witnesses qualify as secondary evidence - Entries in court register do not meet this standard as they lack detailed judgment content. [Para 6]

Court's Reasoning - Judicial Record Destruction - Record destroyed in a fire does not automatically permit use of register entries as secondary evidence - Legal requirement for secondary evidence must be met - Petitioner can prove entries by calling records from the Record Room as allowed by law. [Para 6]

Decision:

The revision petition is dismissed. The order of the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Faridkot, dismissing the application to prove judgments and decree sheets through Civil Court register entries, is upheld. The petitioner and proforma respondents/defendants are permitted to prove entries by calling them from the Record Room in accordance with law.

Specific Relief - Mandatory Injunction - Section 39 of Specific Relief Act - Breach of Obligation - Personal and not inheritable - Licensor died after filing the suit, extinguishing the license - Relationship between licensor and licensee does not continue post demise of licensor - License is not inheritable like tenancy - Decree of mandatory injunction set aside. [Paras 1, 6, 13, 14, 15]

Legal Principle - Licensee Rights - License not transferable or heritable - Rights purely personal between grantor and licensee - Licensor’s death terminates the license - Breach of obligation during licensor's lifetime only actionable - Legal representatives' rights can be asserted in separate proceedings based on different cause of action. [Paras 13, 14]

Decision:

The regular second appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court are set aside, and the trial court’s judgment is restored. The decree of mandatory injunction for handing over possession is found unsustainable and reversed.

Contract Law - Forfeiture of Earnest Money - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Defendant not required to prove loss or issue notice before forfeiting earnest money if plaintiff fails to perform contract - Written contract terms binding - Defendant only needs to prove plaintiff’s lack of readiness and willingness to perform - Appeal allowed, trial court's judgment restored. [Paras 2, 8]

Ready and Willing to Perform - Evidence Requirement - Plaintiff’s financial capability to pay balance sale consideration found insufficient - Plaintiff failed to appear on required date and delayed action for over a year - Defendant’s forfeiture of earnest money justified based on plaintiff’s failure to perform contractual obligations. [Paras 4, 6, 7]

Court's Reasoning - Trial Court’s Findings - Trial court’s findings on plaintiff’s inability to pay and lack of timely action upheld - First appellate court’s requirement for proof of loss and notice before forfeiture found erroneous - Contractual terms permitting forfeiture without additional proof deemed valid. [Paras 8, 9, 10]

Decision:

The second 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 refund of earnest money. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of accordingly.

Constitutional Law - Pensionary Benefits - Article 226 - Employees who were in service prior to January 1, 2004, on daily wage or adhoc basis, and whose services were regularized after this date are governed by the old pension scheme - Denial of pensionary benefits on the ground of being governed by the new pension scheme is unsustainable - Petition allowed. [Paras 6, 8]

Employment Law - Pension Scheme Eligibility - Employees in service prior to 01.01.2004 and regularized later are entitled to old pension scheme benefits - Division Bench decision in Harbana Lal case confirms applicability of old pension scheme despite regularization post-2004 - Judgment attained finality at Supreme Court level - Despite clear legal precedent, petitioner denied benefits unjustly until 2015. [Para 6]

Court's Directions - Calculation and Disbursement of Pensionary Benefits - Respondents directed to grant pensionary benefits under old pension scheme - Calculation to be completed within three months, and all monetary benefits with 9% interest to be released within one month thereafter. [Para 8]

Decision:

The writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for the grant of pensionary benefits under the old pension scheme. The calculation of these benefits shall be done within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% on the calculated amount. All monetary benefits shall be released to the petitioner within one month following the calculation.

Pension Law - Withholding of Pension - Rule 2.2(a) of Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1970 - Withholding of 100% provisional pension due to grave misconduct - Held, more than one-third of the sanctioned pension cannot be withheld even upon conviction for a grave misconduct - Pensioner must be left with adequate amount for maintenance - Impugned order set aside and fresh order directed to be passed in accordance with Rule 2.2(a). [Paras 18, 22]

Pensioner's Rights - Conviction and Pension - Conviction by Criminal Court and findings in departmental proceedings should not lead to different outcomes regarding pension - Maintenance of pensioner cannot be differentiated based on source of conviction or finding of misconduct - Both cases warrant the same limit on pension withholding. [Paras 20, 21]

Court's Reasoning - Previous Judgments and Interpretations - Coordinate Bench's interpretation of Rule 2.2(a) upholds the principle that no more than one-third of pension can be withheld - Argument by State that 100% pension can be withheld in cases of conviction not supported by a plain reading of the rules - Rule 2.2(a) consistently interpreted to protect a portion of pension for maintenance. [Paras 12, 17]

Decision:

The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.04.2015 is set aside. Directions are issued to the respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with Rule 2.2(a) within three months, ensuring that no more than one-third of the petitioner's pension is withheld. Any difference in the pension amount due to the petitioner shall be released from the date it was stopped.

Criminal Law - Dowry Death - Section 304-B IPC - Delay in Lodging FIR - Case of prosecution cannot be discarded solely on delay grounds - Evidence led by prosecution found trustworthy and reliable - Delay of few hours in lodging FIR not significant - FIR contents show clear dowry demand by appellants - Appeal dismissed. [Paras 38, 42, 43]

Medical Evidence - Cause of Death - Section 304-B IPC, Section 113-B Indian Evidence Act - Post-mortem shows asphyxia due to smothering - Prosecution evidence corroborated by medical texts - Defense claims of epilepsy-related death not supported by credible evidence - Smothering confirmed as cause of death - Statement of defense witness (DW-1) found unreliable - Appeal dismissed. [Paras 25, 26, 39, 40, 41]

Dowry Demands - Evidence - Sections 304-B, 498-A IPC - Deceased subjected to cruelty for dowry within six months of marriage - Sufficient dowry given by deceased's family - Withdrawal of Rs. 50,000 by deceased's father proved - No grounds for false implication of appellants by deceased’s family - Conviction and sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment upheld. [Paras 42, 43]

Decision:

The appeal (CRA-S-1189-SB-2000) filed by Romesh Dutt and Rajesh Dutt is dismissed. The conviction and sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 304-B IPC are upheld. Appeals and revisions for enhancement of sentence filed by the State and complainant (CRA-D-514-DBA-2001 and CRR-279-2001) are also dismissed. The police are directed to take Romesh Dutt and Rajesh Dutt into custody to serve the remaining sentence.

Administrative Law - Correction of Name - Article 226 of Constitution of India - Rule 69.1(ii) CBSE Rules - Correction of mother's name in matriculation certificate sought for filling admission forms in colleges supported by relevant documents and affidavit of mother - CBSE denied request on the ground that school records do not support the desired correction - Held, denial unsustainable - Writ petition allowed. [Paras 9, 12]

Education Law - Minor Student's Rights - Petitioner is a minor at the threshold of his career - Correction of mother’s name essential for further studies, issuance of passport, visas, and other formalities - School's request for correction along with relevant documents should not have been dismissed solely based on inconsistency with earlier supplied information. [Paras 9, 10]

Documentary Evidence - Supporting Documents - Various documents such as Aadhar Card, previous school marks certificate, and birth certificate confirmed the correct name of the mother as Madhu Bala - These documents substantiate the petitioner's request for correction. [Para 8]

Decision:

The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 04.01.2018 issued by CBSE is set aside. Directions are issued to CBSE to correct the name of the mother in the petitioner’s matriculation certificate from Madhu Bansal to Madhu Bala within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

Motor Vehicles Act - Liability of Insurer - Section 166 - Accident involving a vehicle with an allegedly invalid driving license - Tribunal held that the driver’s license was not valid, placing primary liability on the vehicle owner and driver, with insurer granted recovery rights - Appeal allowed, insurer directed to bear liability without recovery from the insured. [Paras 1, 14, 15]

Owner’s Due Diligence - Reasonable Care - Owner not required to verify the validity of driving license with the issuing authority beyond standard precautions - Evidence showed the owner took reasonable steps and care in hiring the driver, including verifying the license and assessing driving skills - Tribunal’s decision to grant recovery rights to insurer overturned. [Paras 6, 14]

Court’s Reasoning - Legal Precedents - Consistent with Supreme Court rulings, such as United India Insurance Co. v. Lehru and others, and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others, where the insurer remains liable unless it is proven that the insured was aware of the fake license - No breach of insurance policy terms found on the insured’s part. [Paras 8, 10, 11]

Decision:

The appeal is allowed. The impugned award by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, to the extent it grants recovery rights to the insurer against the insured, is set aside.

Civil Procedure - Ad Valorem Court Fees - Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - Plaintiff filed suit for declaration and alternatively for possession - Defendant's application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to compel plaintiff to pay ad valorem court fees allowed - Plaintiff argued that sale deeds were executed through misrepresentation and without authority after the power of attorney was cancelled - Court held that ad valorem court fees are required since the suit is not just for a declaration but also for possession - Revision dismissed. [Paras 8, 9]

Ad Valorem Court Fees - Relief of Possession - Distinction between cancellation and declaration - Where the suit seeks possession in addition to the declaration of sale deeds being null and void, ad valorem court fees must be paid - Plaintiff cannot avoid payment of ad valorem court fees by only framing the suit for declaration if possession is also sought. [Paras 5, 7]

Court's Reasoning - Evidence and Validity of Power of Attorney - The question of whether the power of attorney was validly cancelled is a matter of evidence and does not exempt the plaintiff from paying the required court fees - Compliance with the order for payment of court fees is necessary for the continuation of the suit. [Para 8]

Decision:

The petition is dismissed. The trial court's order requiring the petitioner to pay ad valorem court fees is upheld.