Civil Procedure - Recalling Witness for Cross-Examination - Section 151 CPC - Specific Remedy Under Order 18 Rule 17 - The court held that the inherent powers under Section 151 CPC cannot be invoked when a specific remedy is available under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC. The trial court correctly dismissed the petitioner's application to recall RW-1 Dr.Paviter Kaur for further cross-examination, as the petitioner did not utilize the specific remedy available [Paras 12, 13].

Electronic Evidence - Admissibility - Section 65-B Indian Evidence Act - Certificate Requirement - The court emphasized that electronic records must be accompanied by a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act at the time of tendering evidence. The CDs presented by the petitioner were not admissible as the requisite certificate was not produced. The petitioner's request to submit a true copy of the CDs was denied [Paras 21, 23, 24].

Judicial Discretion - Use of Inherent Powers - Restriction When Specific Provisions Exist - The court reiterated that inherent powers under Section 151 CPC should be used with circumspection and only when no specific provision exists. The trial court's discretion in denying the application under Section 151 CPC was exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily [Para 12].

Decision - Revision Petition Dismissed - No Merit Found - The revision petition was dismissed as the petitioner failed to provide the necessary certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act at the time of submitting the CDs. The trial court's decision to reject the application for recalling the witness and for submitting the CDs was upheld [Paras 25, 26].

Family Law - Nullity of Marriage - Sections 5(i) and 11 Hindu Marriage Act - Validity of Marriage in Light of Previous Marital Status - The court held that the previous marriage of the respondent was declared null and void before the Lok Adalat on March 31, 2003, rendering the respondent's marriage to the petitioner on February 23, 2003, void. However, it was found that the actual marriage took place on February 23, 2007, not February 23, 2003, as stated in the marriage certificate used for immigration purposes [Paras 14, 17].

Evidence - Marriage Certificate - Rebuttable Presumption - Marriage certificate prepared for immigration purposes does not conclusively prove the date of marriage - The presumption attached to the marriage certificate is rebuttable. The court found that the marriage certificate dated April 1, 2003, indicating a marriage date of February 23, 2003, was prepared with the objective of facilitating immigration to Canada. The true marriage date was February 23, 2007, as admitted by the petitioner in cross-examination [Paras 14, 17].

Estoppel - Silence and Delay in Challenging Marriage - Silence of the petitioner from 2003 to 2010 created an estoppel against him from challenging the marriage as a nullity - The petitioner did not challenge the marriage until 2010, which created an estoppel against him. The court found that no marriage had actually taken place on February 23, 2003, but rather on February 23, 2007 [Para 17].

Decision - Appeal Dismissed - No Infirmity in Lower Court's Judgment - The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower court's judgment that the marriage was not a nullity under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The petitioner was not allowed to take advantage of the marriage certificate prepared for immigration purposes [Paras 19, 20].

Taxation Law - Validity of Tribunal Orders - Section 57 Haryana VAT Act - Quorum of Members - Order Passed by Remaining Members after Retirement of One Member - The court held that when a matter is heard by a full-member bench, the decision must be pronounced by the same bench. If one member retires before the pronouncement, the bench is no longer validly constituted, and the remaining members cannot pronounce the judgment. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter remitted for fresh decision [Paras 13, 14, 19].

Judicial Procedure - Composite Functioning of Tribunal Members - Bench Dynamics - The court emphasized that tribunal members function as a composite body, discussing and exchanging views until the final pronouncement. If any member retires before the judgment is delivered, the dynamic is disrupted, invalidating the judgment process [Para 13].

Legal Precedents - Surendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh - The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Surendra Singh, which establishes that a judgment must be pronounced by the same members who heard the case, as they may change their views until the final pronouncement [Para 15].

Decision - Appeal Allowed - Matter Remitted - The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Haryana Tax Tribunal for fresh adjudication in accordance with the provisions of Section 56 of the Haryana VAT Act [Paras 18, 19].

Medical Law - Termination of Pregnancy - Section 3 Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act - HIV Positive Status - Risk to Health and Life - The court held that the opinion of medical practitioners, the feasibility of termination, and the social circumstances faced by the petitioner, including her HIV-positive status and lack of support, justify the termination of pregnancy [Paras 13, 14].

Legal Principles - Informed Consent and Medical Opinion - Requirement for Registered Medical Practitioners' Opinion - For pregnancies between 12 and 20 weeks, termination requires the opinion of two registered medical practitioners. The court must consider the medical opinion and social circumstances of the patient to form a decision [Para 13].

Social and Medical Impact - Risk of HIV Transmission - Continuous Treatment - The medical board reported a significant risk of HIV transmission from mother to child (20-45%) without treatment. Given the lifelong treatment requirements and the petitioner's social and economic circumstances, termination was deemed appropriate [Para 14].

Decision - Petition Allowed - Termination Ordered - The court directed the respondents to terminate the pregnancy immediately, considering the petitioner's health, mental condition, and lack of social support. The medical college was instructed to provide necessary pre and post-termination care [Paras 14, 15].

Service Law - Suspension Period - Acquittal of Delinquent Officer - Rule 7.3(2) of Punjab State Electricity Board Main Service Regulations, 1975 - Treatment of Suspension Period Post Acquittal - The court held that an acquittal, whether on technical grounds or due to paucity of evidence, should be considered an honorable acquittal. The petitioner cannot be penalized by treating the suspension period as "leave of kind due" instead of "spent on duty" [Paras 11, 12].

Legal Principles - Acquittal and Regularization of Suspension - The court emphasized that unless gross misconduct is proved, an acquittal should lead to the reinstatement of the employee with the suspension period treated as spent on duty. The authorities failed to justify treating the suspension period otherwise [Para 11].

Judicial Review - Quashing of Orders - Arbitrary Treatment of Suspension Period - The court found the orders declining the relief unjustified and suffering from material infirmity. It directed the respondents to treat the suspension period as spent on duty and to regularize it accordingly, including the release of leave encashment [Para 12].

Decision - Petition Allowed - Orders Quashed - The court quashed the impugned orders and directed the respondent authorities to treat the suspension period from 11.11.1994 to 11.06.1995 as "spent on duty" and to release the leave encashment amount [Paras 12, 13].

Family Law - Divorce on Grounds of Cruelty - Section 13 Hindu Marriage Act - Mental and Physical Cruelty - Requirements to Establish Mental Cruelty - The appellant must prove that the respondent's conduct caused such mental pain and suffering that it became impossible to live together. The court found that the respondent's actions, including abuse, violence, and financial demands, constituted cruelty [Paras 13, 17, 30].

Evidence - Cross-Examination of Appellant - Irrelevance and Insulting Nature - Questions posed in cross-examination aimed at humiliating the appellant rather than addressing relevant issues - The court observed that cross-examination was primarily focused on irrelevant and insulting questions, highlighting a lack of substantial evidence against the appellant's claims [Para 18].

Child Testimony - Impact on Children - Statements of Children Indicating Quarrelsome Nature of Respondent - The statements of the children revealed that their father frequently quarreled with their mother, supporting the appellant's claims of cruelty. The court found the children's testimonies to be honest and untutored, reflecting the respondent's quarrelsome behavior [Para 29].

Decision - Petition Allowed - Divorce Granted - The appeal was accepted, the impugned judgment set aside, and the marriage dissolved based on the grounds of cruelty. The court acknowledged the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and granted a decree of divorce [Paras 31, 32, 33].

Constitutional Law - Right to Appointment - Articles 14 and 16 - Appointment to advertised posts when vacancies remain unfilled - State cannot arbitrarily refuse to fill vacancies from the merit list - The court held that the petitioner, being the next in order of merit and having participated in the selection process, was entitled to appointment when posts remained vacant. The refusal to appoint was deemed arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India [Paras 9, 10, 14].

Employment Law - Merit-Based Selection - Rejection of Waiting List Candidates - Distinction between wait-listed candidates and next in order of merit - The petitioner's claim was against advertised posts and not as a wait-listed candidate. The court rejected the State's argument that no waiting list was prepared, highlighting that the petitioner was next in order of merit for the advertised vacancies [Para 14].

Judicial Review - Delay in Legal Process - Continuity of Claim and Vigilance by Petitioner - Despite the elapsed time, the court recognized the petitioner's continuous efforts and representations to secure the appointment. The claim could not be denied on grounds of delay, given the persistent pursuit of his rights through legal and administrative channels [Paras 18, 19].

Decision - Petition Allowed - Appointment Ordered - The court set aside the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's claim and directed the State to appoint the petitioner to one of the vacant posts of Vocational Master (Civil) advertised in 2009. The appointment was to relate back to the date when other candidates from the same selection process were appointed, without entitlement to arrears of salary [Paras 20, 21, 22].

Civil Procedure - Executing Court's Duty - Application of Mind in Property Attachment and Sale - Order 21, Rule 17 and Rule 66 CPC - The court must carefully consider whether the entire property needs to be sold or only a part sufficient to satisfy the decree amount. The executing court failed to do so, leading to a disproportionate sale of the property [Paras 19, 20].

Balance Between Rights - Judgment Debtor and Auction Purchaser - Order 21, Rule 90 CPC - Although protections are provided to auction purchasers to prevent setting aside sales for minor irregularities, the court's jurisdiction to correct material irregularities and injustices remains intact. The court must balance the rights of both parties without favoring the auction purchaser excessively [Paras 23, 24].

Proportionality in Attachment - Order 21, Rule 17 CPC - The property attached should correspond as closely as possible to the amount due under the decree. The executing court did not adhere to this principle, leading to an unnecessary and extensive sale that prejudiced the judgment debtor [Para 30].

Public Auction and Market Value - Public Auctions Often Do Not Reflect True Market Value - The public auction process may not yield the property's true market value, especially when conducted without proper judicial consideration. This oversight can cause substantial financial injury to the judgment debtor [Para 34].

Decision - Sale Set Aside - Revision Petition Allowed - The executing court's orders were set aside due to material irregularities causing substantial injury to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to return the auction amount with interest to the auction purchaser, highlighting the importance of judicial diligence in execution proceedings [Paras 35, 36, 37].

Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR based on Compromise - Section 307 IPC - High Court's power under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings even in non-compoundable offenses if the settlement serves justice and prevents abuse of process - The court emphasized that each case should be considered on its own merits, evaluating the possibility of conviction, nature of injuries, weapon used, and whether the offense can be diluted - Quashing allowed based on compromise, considering the continuation of proceedings would serve no useful purpose and amount to abuse of process [Paras 7, 8, 9].

Offense Against Society vs. Individual - Section 307 IPC - While Section 307 generally represents a serious offense against society, the court may consider the context, such as the nature of the weapon and public exposure, to determine if the case warrants quashing on compromise - The court held that the High Court can quash such offenses if the evidence suggests a strong possibility of non-conviction and if public interest and justice are better served by doing so [Paras 6, 7].

Factors for Consideration in Quashing - Examination of medical evidence, nature of weapon, public exposure, and context of the offense (e.g., matrimonial discord) to assess the appropriateness of quashing under Section 482 CrPC - The court outlined factors like whether the injuries were on vital body parts, if the weapon used was deadly, and if the incident was publicly exposed, to decide on quashing based on compromise [Paras 7, 8].

Decision - FIR and Cross Version Quashed - The petitions were allowed, and the FIR, along with cross versions and all consequential proceedings, were quashed based on the compromise, subject to costs payable to the District Legal Services Authority - The court ordered quashing, emphasizing the mutual settlement and its role in fostering peace between the parties [Paras 10, 11].