Specific Performance – Execution of Agreement for Sale – Plaintiff alleges execution and renewal of agreements between parties for sale of property – Defendant denies execution and contends trespass and unlawful possession by the plaintiff – Trial Court and Appellate Court reject plaintiff’s claims, disbelieving execution of agreements – Courts below held plaintiff as trespasser, dismissing the suit and granting decree for recovery of possession to defendant. [Para 5-12]

Evidence – Contradictory Testimonies – Evidence of plaintiff and witness regarding place of execution of agreement found contradictory – Failure to examine other attestors to agreements – Courts below find evidence insufficient to prove execution of agreements. [Para 12]

Documentary Proof – Execution of Agreements – Courts below find plaintiff failed to prove execution of Ext.A1 and Ext.A1(a) agreements due to insufficient evidence and contradictory testimonies – Dismisses claim based on unregistered agreements citing Section 17 of the Registration Act. [Para 12]

Limitation – Renewal of Agreement – Finding of appellate court on limitation rebutted by renewal agreement Ext.A1(a) dated 05.09.2003 – Courts below erred in holding claim based on Ext.A1 or Ext.A1(a) agreements as barred by limitation. [Para 12]

Second Appeal – Substantial Question of Law – High Court finds no substantial question of law arises for admitting Second Appeal – Emphasizes mandatory formulation of substantial question of law under Section 100 read with Order XLII Rule 2 of the C.P.C. for admitting and maintaining a second appeal – Dismisses appeal finding it meritless without admitting. [Para 13-20]

Document Production – Agreement for Sale – Plaintiff sought production of an agreement for sale concerning 87 cents of land, part of the plaint schedule property, executed between the plaintiff’s father and the 1^st defendant – Application under Order 11 Rule 12 of CPC – Rejection by the learned Munsiff on the ground of the document not being essential for adjudication – Challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. [Para 1]

Injunction Simplicitor – Plaintiff claims right over the plaint schedule property through intestate succession while 3^rd defendant (plaintiff’s sibling) claims under a purported Will executed by their father – Dispute over the validity and contents of the agreement for sale concerning the said property – Plaintiff seeks to restrain all defendants from creating any document, trespassing, making constructions, demarcating boundaries or putting strangers in possession of the plaint schedule property without plaintiff’s junction. [Para 7]

Co-ownership – Plaintiff asserts one-half co-ownership over the plaint schedule property, including the subject 87 cents, subject to the validity of the Will claimed by the 3^rd defendant – Seeks to understand the recitals and nature of the agreement for sale executed between his father and the 1^st defendant, asserting a potential impact on his rights. [Para 7]

Decision – Ext.P5 order set aside – Direction to 1^st defendant to produce the original agreement for sale concerning the 87 cents of land executed between the plaintiff’s father and the 1^st defendant – Original Petition allowed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing the relevance and necessity of the agreement for sale in deciding the injunction relief sought by the plaintiff. [Para 8]

Review Petition – Grounds for Review: Judgment discusses criteria under which a review petition may be entertained, specifying conditions like discovery of new evidence, errors apparent on record, or any other sufficient reason. [Para 5, 9-19]

SARFAESI Act – Agricultural Land: The review petitioner seeks the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to ascertain if the property in question is agricultural land, invoking Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act. [Para 3-4]

Discretion of Tribunal: Directions to the Debts Recovery Tribunal to consider the applications for appointing an Advocate Commissioner and staying proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. [Para 4, 7]

Dismissal of Review Petition: The Court finds that the review petitioner has failed to meet any of the requirements for a review and dismisses the petition. [Para 6]

Stay on Proceedings: While dismissing the review, the Court allows the petitioner to seek a stay on proceedings under the SARFAESI Act till the application for the appointment of Commissioner is considered. [Para 7]

Writ Petition – Setting Aside Communication – Petitioner seeks to set aside the communication dated 26.10.2023, stopping the storage of paddy in the petitioner's premises until payment of Rs.7,28,167/- along with interest to respondents No.6-Punjab State Warehousing Corporation. [Para 1]

Custom Milling Policy – Allocation of Paddy – The State formulated a Custom Milling Policy for KMS 2023-24, under which the petitioner applied for the allocation of paddy. The respondent alleged that the petitioner filed a false affidavit regarding the status of the earlier owner of the land where the rice mill is located. [Para 3]

Land Ownership and Arbitration – The land where the petitioner's rice mill is located was previously owned by M/s Rashi Foods. A dispute regarding the delayed supply of rice was pending between the previous owner and respondent No.6. The Arbitrator rejected the claim of respondent No.6, and the matter is now pending before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. [Para 4]

Custom Milling Policy – Definition of Defaulter – As per the Custom Milling Policy, a mill is considered a defaulter if there's a pending police case/court case/arbitration case against the miller on account of embezzlement, non-delivery of rice, or non-clearance of any dues of any Procurement Agency. [Para 9]

Arbitration Award – Status of Defaulter – The Arbitrator rejected the claim of the respondent against M/s Rashi Foods. Given the absence of a stay by the Objecting Court, it's not reasonable to conclude that an arbitration case is pending between M/s Rashi Foods and respondent No.6. [Para 9-10]

Decision – The demand raised by the respondent from the petitioner regarding the afore-stated litigation is not sustainable. The writ petition is allowed. Observations made by the Court shall not be construed as an opinion regarding the pending litigation between respondent No.6 and M/s Rashi Foods. [Para 12-13]

Bail Application – NDPS Act Violation – Petitioner seeks bail under Section 439 CrPC for violations of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) as per FIR mentioned. The petitioner has been incarcerated for over three years and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause irreversible injustice to her and her family. [Para 1, 3]

Criminal History – Consideration for Bail – The petitioner's criminal history is considered, but the court observes that the criminal history must be of cases where the accused was convicted. The petitioner's custody of more than three years is deemed sufficient for bail eligibility. [Para 2, 6, 7-A]

Bail Conditions – Stringent Measures – The court considers imposing stringent conditions to ensure the petitioner does not influence the investigation or tamper with evidence. The conditions include surrendering of weapons, maintaining only one mobile number, and compliance with other specified conditions. [Para 8, 9, 14, 15]

Decision – Granting of Bail – The court decides to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the terms and conditions imposed, including furnishing a personal bond and surety, compliance with specified conditions, and surrendering of weapons. The court emphasizes that any violation of the conditions may lead to bail cancellation. [Para 11, 16, 19]

Rights of the Accused – The court acknowledges the rights of the accused and mentions that if the petitioner finds the bond amount or conditions beyond reach or violating rights, they may seek appropriate reduction or modification. [Para 17, 19]

Observations – No Merit Commentary – The court clarifies that any observation made in the order is not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. [Para 20]

Civil Revision – Amendment of Pleading – Dismissal of application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepat, for seeking amendment of pleading in the plaint by the plaintiff – Challenged by the plaintiff. [Para 1, 8-11]

Specific Performance and Declaratory Relief – Plaintiff sought specific performance of agreement to sell dated 19.10.2015 and declaratory relief against legal notices dated 09.05.2016, 01.06.2016, and 01.07.2016, and publications dated 10.06.2016 and 12.07.2016 issued by defendants through Advocate Sh. Ashwani Sharma as illegal, null, void, and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. [Para 2-4, 8]

Receipt of Earnest Money – Defendants admitted to receiving an amount of Rs.36,31,250/- as earnest money from the plaintiff at the time of executing the agreement to sell, with an amount of Rs.34,31,250/- received in cash and Rs.2,00,000/- received by way of cheques which were realized by the defendants. [Para 3]

Legal Notices and Publications – Defendants pleaded issuance of legal notices and publications in a Hindi daily newspaper “Viraat Vaibhav” urging the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract by paying the balance sale consideration, and on failure, declaring the agreement to sell as cancelled and rescinded. [Para 6-7]

Amendment Application – Plaintiff sought amendment in the prayer clause of the plaint to include challenge against additional legal notices and publications by the defendants; argued necessity of amendment for proper adjudication of the case without any malafide intention. [Para 8]

Response to Amendment Application – Defendants argued against the amendment citing it as an attempt to introduce a time-barred claim and cover up lapses and lacuna in the plaintiff’s suit, asserting that the amendment would cause prejudice to the defendants and is not maintainable as per Order VII Rule 11(d) of C.P.C. [Para 9, 16-17]

Legal Principles on Amendment – Citing precedent, counsel for the petitioner emphasized on a liberal approach towards amendment for determining the real questions in controversy, while ensuring no injustice or prejudice is caused to the other side; highlighted the exceptional circumstances of COVID-19 pandemic for consideration of delay in filing amendment application. [Para 13-15]

Judicial Interpretation – Citing precedent, counsel for the respondents argued against the amendment emphasizing on the principle that a new cause of action or a claim barred by law cannot be introduced through amendment. [Para 18]

Revision Petition – Re-hearing Due to Absence of Relevant Documents – Initial reservation of judgment on 04.09.2023 was revisited for re-hearing on 28.09.2023 due to absence of certain legal notices and publications, which were eventually presented and taken on record on 03.10.2023. [Para 21]

Legal Notices and Publications – Examination for Validity – Legal notices dated 09.05.2016, 01.06.2016, and 01.07.2016 alongside publications dated 10.06.2016 and 12.07.2016 were examined for their legality, context, and impact on the sale agreement dated 19.10.2015. [Para 22-26]

Rescindment of Agreement – Communication and Publication – Defendants communicated the decision of rescindment of the agreement to sell through legal notice dated 01.07.2016 and publicized it on 12.07.2016, which was later challenged by the plaintiff. [Para 28-29]

Amendment in Plaint – Introduction of New Challenge – The plaintiff sought to introduce a new challenge concerning the legal notice dated 01.07.2016 and its publication, which was initially deemed time-barred but was further examined for its potential impact on the case. [Para 30-32]

Judgment – Setting Aside Impugned Order and Allowing Revision – The impugned order dated 08.05.2023 was set aside, and the revision petition was allowed subject to the payment of costs of Rs.25,000/-. The amended plaint is to be filed before the learned trial Court by 20.11.2023, with a directive for expedited proceedings for a final decision. [Para 33]

Employment Dispute - Arrears of Salary and Retirement Benefits - Petitioner seeks directions for payment of arrears of salary from 2002 to 2011 and re-fixation of pensionary and retirement benefits - Petitioner's history of suspension, conviction, and subsequent acquittal - Dispute over withholding of salary and counting service for retirement benefits - Interpretation of relevant service rules. [Para 1-5]

Service Benefits – Payment of Salary during Suspension – Petitioner sought salary from the period of suspension to reinstatement – Suspension followed by dismissal due to conviction – Acquittal and reinstatement – Dispute over payment of salary for the suspension period. [Para 6-7]

Suspension and Dismissal – Bank employee suspended due to arrest by CBI – Subsistence allowance paid during suspension – Later dismissed upon conviction – Relevant provisions of SBI Rules invoked – Suspension period treated as not spent on duty – Employee's acquittal and reinstatement – Terms and conditions of reinstatement specified. [Para 7-9]

Back Wages – Employee acquitted after suspension and dismissal – Claim for back wages – Distinction between cases of departmental proceedings and criminal involvement – Supreme Court's precedent emphasizing different considerations for back wages in such cases. [Para 18-19]

Continuous Service – Period of suspension and dismissal treated as "not spent on duty" for back wages – However, reinstatement after acquittal entitles employee to consider the period as continuous service without any break – Re-fixing of pensionary and retirement benefits ordered accordingly. [Para 20-24]

Conversion of Sentences - Offences under IPC Sections 376 and 306 - Applicant seeks conversion of consecutive sentences to concurrent - Oral application made by appellant - Consideration of oral prayers allowed as no formal application required by Code - Arguments presented by appellant's counsel - Contention that suicide and rape offenses are part of the same transaction - Relying on precedent cases - State's opposition to the prayers - Gravity and seriousness of offenses argued by State - Assertion that the offenses are distinct - Reference to relevant case laws for sentence conversion. [Para 1-12]

Criminal Procedure – Scope and Exercise of Jurisdiction under Section 427 Cr.P.C., 1973 – Examination of legislative provisions and relevant case law – Discretionary nature of Section 427 Cr.P.C. – Application of concurrent or consecutive sentences – Consideration of the intertwining and intrinsic facts of the offenses – Application of section 427 Cr.P.C., 1973 to the case – Directions for concurrent running of sentences – Appeal dismissed as not pursued. [Para 13-24]

Criminal Offenses – Rape and Abetment of Suicide – Offenses arising from the same transaction – Intertwined and intrinsic facts – Causal connection between offenses – Application of section 427 Cr.P.C., 1973 to the case – Directions for concurrent running of sentences for section 376 and section 306 IPC – Benefit granted to the appellant. [Para 18-21]

Judicial Discretion – Discretion exercised on sound legal principles and factual foundation – No straight-jacket formula for applying section 427 Cr.P.C., 1973 – Consideration of the nature of offenses and facts of each case – Application of concurrent sentences in appropriate cases – Importance of judicial discretion in sentencing. [Para 16-17]

Decision – Appeal dismissed as not pursued – Sentences under section 376 and section 306 IPC directed to run concurrently. [Para 22-23]

Appeal Maintainability – The appeal, filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenges the judgment of a learned single Judge who refused to quash proceedings in C.C. No.290/2022 on jurisdictional grounds, argued through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the CrPC. The Bench examined the maintainability of the appeal based on the prayers and the jurisdiction exercised by the single Judge in the impugned judgment. [Para 1-6]

Jurisdictional Challenge – The appellants contended that the Magistrate Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed, urging for the quashing of all proceedings in the said complaint, arguing the dispute to be of civil nature arising from an agreement, and advocated for the matter to be handled through mediation and arbitration as provided in the agreement. [Para 9]

Section 5 of Kerala High Court Act – Emphasis on the provision which allows an appeal to a Bench of two Judges from a judgment or order of a Single Judge exercising original jurisdiction, with appellants asserting that the learned single Judge failed to exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226. [Para 11-12]

Exercise of Inherent Powers – Discussion on Section 482 of the CrPC, wherein the High Court may exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. The appellants sought the exercise of these inherent powers to quash the criminal case against them. [Para 13-14]

Prayers and Nomenclature – The Supreme Court’s precedent in Pepsi Foods Ltd. And Another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others highlighted, indicating that the nomenclature under which a case is filed is irrelevant, and what is pertinent are the prayers made by the petitioners. [Para 16, 24]

Precedents on Appeal Maintainability – Examination of various precedents concerning the maintainability of an appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, distinguishing between the exercise of original jurisdiction and inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC. [Para 17-23]

Dismissal on Grounds of Maintainability – The appeal was dismissed solely on the grounds of maintainability without delving into the merits of the case, aligning with the precedent set in Abubacker Kunju v. Thulasidas, that no appeal would lie against an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 482 of the CrPC. [Para 23, 25]