Amendment of Pleadings – Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Petitioner sought to amend the plaint to include a relief of specific performance based on an Agreement to Sell (ATS) dated 16.11.2011 – Trial Court dismissed the amendment application, citing lack of due diligence and that the amendment would change the nature of the suit – High Court upheld Trial Court's decision, emphasizing the requirement of due diligence and that the amendment was sought after the commencement of the trial [Paras 1-11].

Due Diligence Requirement – The amendment was sought after the trial had commenced, with the plaintiff failing to show due diligence as required under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Court found the explanation of ‘inadvertence’ insufficient and highlighted the mandatory nature of due diligence [Paras 7-7.4].

Change in Nature of Suit – The proposed amendment to include a relief for specific performance was found to introduce a new cause of action, inconsistent with the original claims of ownership and possession – High Court held that the amendment would change the fundamental nature of the suit and introduce a time-barred claim, thus prejudicing the defendants [Paras 6-6.8].

Time-Barred Claims – Court noted that the amendment sought to introduce a claim that was already time-barred, and thus could not be permitted – Cited Supreme Court precedents stating amendments introducing time-barred claims should not be allowed [Paras 6.6-6.8].

Decision: Petition dismissed – High Court found no error in the Trial Court's dismissal of the amendment application – Emphasized the importance of due diligence and the prohibition against introducing time-barred claims through amendments [Para 9-10].

Amendment of Written Statement – Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Petitioner sought to amend the written statement to include new facts and explanations regarding the execution of the Agreement to Sell (ATS) – Trial Court dismissed the amendment application, noting the completion of pleadings and advanced stage of trial – High Court upheld Trial Court's decision, citing the proposed amendments as inconsistent and prejudicial to the plaintiff [Paras 1-14].

Inconsistent and Contradictory Allegations – High Court emphasized that amendments introducing mutually destructive and contradictory allegations should not be allowed – Found that the proposed amendments would alter the nature of the original defense and introduce a completely new case, contrary to the defendant's previous categorical denials [Paras 5-10].

Prejudice and Delay – Allowing the proposed amendments would delay the trial and cause prejudice to the plaintiff – Court noted the amendments would result in a wholly inconsistent written statement, complicating the adjudication process and leading to potential injustice [Para 10].

Bona Fide Requirement – Defendant's plea of inadvertence by previous counsel was not considered a bona fide ground for amendment – Court stressed the need for legitimate reasons for amendments, especially when they fundamentally alter the defense [Para 12].

Decision:

Petition dismissed – High Court found no error in the Trial Court's dismissal of the amendment application – Emphasized the importance of consistency in pleadings and the prohibition against introducing new, contradictory defenses through amendments [Para 14].

Civil Procedure Code – Res Judicata – Successive Suit on Same Cause – Plaintiffs claimed declaration of title and injunction over ancestral land alleging adverse possession – Earlier suit by plaintiffs' forefathers over same property dismissed and upheld up to Second Appeal – Present suit found to be between same parties over same subject matter – Held: Findings of previous litigation binding, fresh suit barred by principles of res judicata [Paras 3-4, 20-23]

Adverse Possession – Plea Introduced After Dismissal of Previous Suit – Plaintiffs amended plaint to incorporate claim of adverse possession after earlier litigation concluded – Courts found lack of specific pleadings as to date and nature of hostile possession – Held: Adverse possession plea not credible or independently tenable – Mere assertion insufficient to change character of cause [Paras 20-21]

Civil Procedure – Preliminary Issue – Mixed Question of Law and Fact – Whether res judicata can be tried as a preliminary issue – Citing Abdul Rahman and Jamia Masjid judgments – Held: If relevant facts are admitted and no further evidence is needed, res judicata may be decided as a preliminary issue [Paras 17-22]

Second Appeal – Scope Under Section 100 CPC – Substantial Question of Law – Reaffirmed that Second Appeal lies only on substantial question of law – No perversity or jurisdictional error in concurrent findings of fact – Held: Appeal liable to be dismissed in limine for want of substantial question of law [Paras 12-16, 24-25]

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law found – Concurrent findings of courts below upheld – Res judicata rightly applied.

Debt Recovery – Quashing of order dated 03.10.2019 of Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT)-I in O.A. No. 889/2017 and recovery proceedings in RC No. 294/2019 – Petitioner seeks permission to participate in the auction scheduled for 22.03.2024 and continue to occupy the subject property until then – Withdrawal of challenge to DRT orders – Petitioner's liability to pay rent and arrears of rent – Terms and conditions imposed – Petitioner permitted to occupy the subject property until 22.03.2024, subject to compliance with conditions – Participation in auction proceedings allowed. [Para 1-9]

Revision Petition – Eviction Order Challenge – Petitioners/tenants challenging the eviction order passed by the Additional Rent Controller for a shop in Rajouri Garden, Delhi. The order dismissed their Leave to Defend/Contest Application, allowing the Eviction Petition by the Respondent/landlord. [Para 1]

Bona Fide Requirement – Senior Citizen Landlord – Respondent/landlord's claim of bona fide requirement due to old age and health issues. Contention that the ground floor space is necessary for residence as he cannot use stairs and lacks alternative suitable accommodation in Delhi. [Para 2, 2.1, 6]

Contentions of Petitioners/Tenants – Arguing against the bona fide need of the Respondent/landlord, citing his US citizenship and availability of alternate accommodations in the property. Also raised issues about the landlord's health and family circumstances. [Para 5]

Contentions of Respondent/Landlord – Emphasizing the necessity of the ground floor due to health and age, the inappropriateness of other spaces in the building, and the legal validity of his requirement as a foreign citizen. [Para 6]

Analysis and Findings – Court examined whether the Respondent/landlord's requirement for the demised premises was genuine and bona fide. Consideration of landlord's age, health, the unsuitability of other spaces in the building, and the absence of alternative accommodation in Delhi. [Paras 7-19]

Decision – Dismissal of Revision Petition – Court finds no reason to interfere with the Impugned Order. The petitioners/tenants' revision petition and all associated applications are dismissed. The Court upholds the bona fide requirement of the Respondent/landlord for the disputed premises. [Para 21-22]

Writ Petition – Voluntary Retirement Scheme – Challenge against Tribunal’s dismissal of Original Application – Petitioner’s inadvertent withdrawal from the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2019 due to a technical error – High Court upholds Tribunal’s decision. [Para 1, 6-7, 10, 20-31]

BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2019 – Implementation and applicability – Eligibility criteria and procedural requirements for opting and withdrawing from the scheme – High Court’s interpretation of the scheme’s clauses. [Para 3-5, 18-19]

Technical Error in Online Application – Petitioner’s claim of accidental withdrawal from VRS due to a computer glitch – High Court’s consideration of procedural compliance over claimed inadvertent error. [Para 25-26, 28-29]

Contractual Nature of VRS – Application of Indian Contract Act, 1872 to VRS – High Court’s interpretation of voluntary retirement as a contractual offer that can be withdrawn during validity period. [Para 24]

Judicial Review – Scope in matters of policy decisions and contractual obligations – High Court’s stance on non-interference in policy matters and procedural lapses. [Para 21, 31]

Decision – Dismissal of Writ Petition – High Court finds no infirmity in Tribunal’s findings and upholds the dismissal of petitioner’s claim for inclusion in VRS post withdrawal. [Para 31]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction under Section 304 part-II IPC and Section 34 IPC – Challenge against judgment and order of sentence by the appellants – Conviction based on preponderance of probabilities with witnesses turning hostile – Non-reconstruction of Trial Court Record (TCR) leading to inability to affirm conviction. [Paras 1-2, 10-11, 14-16]

Judicial Procedure – Lost Trial Court Records – Impact on criminal appeals – Reliance on Supreme Court decisions emphasizing the essentiality of TCR for affirming convictions and protecting rights under Article 21 – Appeals allowed due to unavailability of complete TCR. [Paras 12-14, 17-19]

Fair Trial – Right to Appeal and Satisfy Appellate Court – Importance of complete TCR for appellants to challenge trial court’s conclusions – Non-availability of TCR considered a violation of fair legal procedure and Article 21. [Para 13]

Decision – Convictions and sentences set aside in the absence of complete TCR – Appeals allowed based on principles of criminal jurisprudence and right to fair trial. [Paras 15, 19-20]

Challenging of Order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Petition against the order dated 04.09.2023 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, rejecting the application for recalling P.W.1 for further cross-examination in a POCSO case - Offences under IPC and POCSO Act alleged against the petitioner. [Para 1]

Factual Background - Complaint leading to charges under IPC and POCSO Act - Petitioner arrested, charged, and trial commenced - Victim P.W.1 examined and cross-examined, with subsequent witnesses also examined. [Paras 2-4]

Application for Recall of Witness - Petitioner's application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling P.W.1 after one year, citing omissions and improvements in her testimony - Application rejected by the trial court. [Para 4]

Court's Analysis - Delay in filing the application and in seeking a certified copy of the order not explained - Court notes victim's support for the prosecution and observes the petitioner's tactics could be an attempt to protract proceedings - Recall of witness seen as potentially re-victimizing and humiliating for the victim. [Paras 9-10]

Decision - Petition lacks merit and is rejected - Court emphasizes the sensitivity of the matter and the inappropriateness of recalling the victim at this stage of the trial. [Para 10]

Appeal for Divorce Decree – Non-consummation and Mental Cruelty – Appellant's plea for divorce based on allegations of non-consummation of marriage and mental cruelty by the respondent, including refusal of physical intimacy since the marriage date (12.7.2006) until appellant's departure to the USA. [Paras 3, 16, 17, 19, 21]

Respondent’s Non-Appearance and Allegations – Despite notice, respondent did not appear in court. Allegations by appellant of respondent having an affair, lodging false complaints against appellant’s family, and desertion. [Paras 4-6, 10-11, 20]

Legal Grounds for Divorce – Trial court’s dismissal of divorce plea, stating non-proven grounds under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Appellant's argument for divorce based on mental cruelty and irretrievable breakdown of marriage. [Paras 7, 8, 15]

High Court’s Analysis and Decision – Setting aside trial court's judgment, High Court acknowledges mental cruelty as a valid ground for divorce under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Act, recognizing refusal of physical intimacy as mental cruelty. Divorce decree granted. [Paras 17-19, 21, 22]