Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – Jurisdiction Under Section 100 CPC – Substantial Questions of Law Mandatory – Interim Orders Without Framing Substantial Questions Invalid – The High Court granted interim relief directing status quo in a second appeal before framing substantial questions of law – Held: Under Section 100 CPC, a second appeal is maintainable only if the case involves substantial questions of law, which must be framed before any substantive orders – The impugned interim relief was contrary to Section 100 CPC and therefore set aside [Paras 2, 9–10].

Civil Procedure – Interim Orders – Application of Inherent Powers – Section 151 CPC – Limited Scope in Second Appeals – High Courts may invoke inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to prevent abuse of process or meet the ends of justice – Held: The use of inherent powers cannot override or nullify specific provisions of the CPC, such as the mandatory requirement to frame substantial questions of law under Section 100 CPC before granting interim relief [Paras 10.3–10.4].

Injunction Suit – Suit for Bare Injunction Without Declaration of Title – Not Maintainable – The plaintiff had sought an injunction without establishing title – Held: Following Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, bare injunction suits are not maintainable without a declaration of title where ownership is disputed – The First Appellate Court correctly overturned the trial court's decree based solely on revenue records, which do not confer title [Paras 7, 9, 10].

Doctrine of Substantial Question of Law – Precedents – Jurisdictional Limits of High Courts in Second Appeals – Reiterated principles from Ram Phal v. Banarasi and Raghavendra Swamy Mutt v. Uttaradi Mutt, that substantial questions of law must be framed before hearing or granting relief in a second appeal [Paras 9, 10.3].

Decision: Appeal allowed: The High Court’s interim order dated 20.09.2024 in SA No. 518 of 2023 is set aside. The matter remanded to the High Court for compliance with Section 100 CPC.

Constitutional Law – Article 32 – Scope and Limitations – Challenging High Court Judgments – Under Article 32 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court does not have the jurisdiction to declare a High Court judgment as illegal. The appropriate remedy lies in filing a review/recall application before the High Court or challenging the judgment under Article 136. (Para 3)

Judicial Review – High Court Judgment – Remedy for Non-Participation of Affected Parties – Petitioners claiming they were not heard in a High Court judgment must approach the High Court for recall of the order or challenge the judgment through a petition under Article 136 before the Supreme Court. Article 32 cannot be invoked for such purposes. (Para 3)

Survey and Regularization of Encroached Properties – Relief Denied – The petitioners sought regularization and survey of their apartments allegedly constructed on government land. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, leaving the petitioners to avail remedies under applicable laws. (Paras 2–4)

Finality of High Court Decisions – Dismissal of SLP and Modification Application – A Special Leave Petition against the High Court judgment had already been dismissed by the Supreme Court, and an interlocutory application for modification was also rejected. The Court emphasized the need to follow proper procedural remedies. (Paras 2, 3)

Dismissal of Petition – Availability of Alternate Remedies – The Supreme Court dismissed the petition under Article 32 while clarifying that the dismissal does not preclude the petitioners from availing alternative remedies under law. (Para 4)

Decision:

Writ Petition Dismissed:

i) The Supreme Court held that it cannot declare the Bombay High Court’s judgment as illegal under Article 32.

ii) Petitioners were advised to pursue alternate remedies, such as a review/recall application or a petition under Article 136 of the Constitution.

iii) Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.

Civil Law - Specific Relief Act – Extension of Time for Deposit – Rescission of Contract Denied – Appellants (judgment debtors) challenged the High Court's dismissal of their application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, seeking rescission of a contract due to the plaintiffs’ (decree holders’) alleged failure to deposit the balance sale consideration within the stipulated time – High Court upheld the executing court’s decision allowing the plaintiffs to deposit the amount and rejecting rescission – Held: The trial court retains discretion to extend time for compliance with a conditional decree; the delay was not unreasonable, and the High Court rightly exercised its discretion in favor of the plaintiffs – Appeals dismissed [Paras 3–6, 13–15, 60–61].

Doctrine of Merger – Impact on Conditional Decree – The trial court’s decree merged with the High Court’s judgment in the second appeals, making the latter operative – No specific time for deposit of the balance sale consideration was fixed by the High Court in its judgment – Held: Plaintiffs were entitled to execute the High Court's decree, and the argument that the original 20-day period revived post-merger was untenable [Paras 27–34, 46–49].

Rescission Under Section 28 – Judicial Discretion – Section 28 allows the court to rescind a contract or extend time for compliance with a decree for specific performance – Court retains control over the decree even after its issuance and may grant extensions to prevent injustice – Held: Executing court acted within its discretion in permitting the plaintiffs to deposit the amount post-judgment, particularly as there was no willful default by the plaintiffs [Paras 24–26, 35–37, 44–46].

Precedents – Application of Judicial Principles – Reiterated the principles from Sardar Mohar Singh v. Mangilal, (1997) 9 SCC 217, and Bhupinder Kumar v. Angrej Singh, (2009) 8 SCC 766, affirming that courts retain jurisdiction to extend time under Section 28 – Distinguished the decision in Prem Jeevan v. K.S. Venkata Raman, (2017) 11 SCC 57, where unexplained and prolonged delays led to rescission [Paras 36–59].

Equity and Fairness – Plaintiffs’ Conduct – Plaintiffs promptly filed execution petitions and deposited the balance sale consideration after obtaining the High Court’s decree – Defendants' applications for rescission were dismissed, as no willful failure or unreasonable delay was demonstrated – Held: Equity favored the plaintiffs, ensuring that the decree for specific performance was not frustrated [Paras 14–15, 40].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court’s judgment affirming the executing court’s order upheld – Plaintiffs’ right to enforce the decree for specific performance validated – Appellants' arguments based on delay and revived time periods rejected [Paras 60–61].

Criminal Law – Kidnapping and Abduction – Ingredients of Offence – Sections 363 and 366-A IPC – Held: Evidence adduced failed to establish kidnapping or abduction with intent for illicit intercourse – The prosecutrix testified that she accompanied the appellant voluntarily – Delay in filing FIR and absence of corroborating testimony of material witnesses undermined prosecution's case – Conviction quashed [Paras 6-10, 12].

Evidence – Medical Examination and Age Determination – Age Range of 16-18 Years – Held: Prosecution could not conclusively establish that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the alleged offence – Doctor’s opinion placed her age between 16-18 years, allowing possibility of her being 18 – Benefit of doubt extended to the appellant [Paras 7, 10].

Trial and Procedural Lapses – Failure to Examine Key Witness – Sarita, Sister of the Prosecutrix – Held: Prosecution’s decision not to present an essential eyewitness weakened the case – Procedural lapses highlighted as detrimental to a fair trial [Paras 6, 10].

Judicial Principles – Gender Sensitivity in Sexual Offences – Supreme Court Guidelines – Held: Court underscored the importance of avoiding stereotypes in evaluating victim testimony – However, in this case, prosecutrix’s clear assertion of voluntariness negated charges of forcible abduction or illicit intent [Paras 8-9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction under Sections 363 and 366-A IPC quashed – Appellant discharged from bail bond.

Criminal Law - Abetment of Rape – Essential Ingredients Not Satisfied – Conviction Set Aside – The appellant was convicted under Section 114 read with Section 376 IPC on the allegation that she harbored the prime accused (her husband) and the victim (a minor) in her house and prevented the victim from leaving – Held: For abetment under Section 107 IPC, it must be shown that the accused (i) instigated the crime, (ii) conspired to commit it, or (iii) intentionally aided in its commission – The victim's testimony did not establish that the appellant had any role in facilitating or encouraging the offence of rape – Mere presence in the house is not sufficient to establish abetment – Conviction under Section 114 read with Section 376 IPC quashed [Paras 4-6].

Harboring an Offender – Absence of Knowledge or Intent – Acquittal Ordered – The appellant was convicted under Section 212 IPC on the ground that she allowed the accused and victim to stay in her house – Held: To establish guilt under Section 212 IPC, it must be proven that the accused (i) had knowledge of the offence committed, and (ii) concealed or harbored the offender with the intention of screening them from punishment – The victim's testimony contradicted her own statement during cross-examination, where she admitted that she had not informed the appellant about being lured – Since there was no independent evidence proving the appellant's knowledge of the crime, her conviction under Section 212 IPC was unsustainable – Conviction under Section 212 IPC set aside [Paras 7-10].

Omission of Key Testimony in Initial Statements – Benefit of Doubt Given – The victim claimed in her examination-in-chief that she informed the appellant that she had been lured by the prime accused – However, in cross-examination, she admitted that she had not mentioned this to the police in her initial statement – Held: This was a material omission, amounting to a contradiction, making her claim an afterthought – Material contradictions weaken the prosecution’s case, entitling the accused to acquittal [Paras 11-12].

Acquittal Ordered – Bail Bonds Cancelled – Since the prosecution failed to prove that the appellant had instigated, conspired, or aided the crime, her conviction was quashed – The appellant was acquitted of all charges, and her bail bonds were cancelled – The Court clarified that the decision was limited to the appellant and did not affect the convictions of the co-accused [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – Conviction Set Aside – Appellant Acquitted.

Criminal Law - Magistrate’s Power – Scope of Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. & 175 BNSS – Duty to Apply Judicial Mind – The Magistrate passed an order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. directing police to register an FIR and investigate without properly analyzing whether the complaint disclosed cognizable offences – Held: A Magistrate is required to apply his mind to determine if the allegations disclose a prima facie case before ordering police investigation under Section 156(3) – A mechanical order for police investigation is unsustainable in law and must be set aside [Paras 12-13, 21].

Offence Under Section 294 IPC – Mere Abusive Language Not Sufficient – The Magistrate accepted the complainant’s contention without verifying whether the allegations met the ingredients of Section 294 IPC – Held: Mere abusive, humiliating, or defamatory words do not constitute an offence under Section 294 IPC; the words must have a lascivious element arousing sexual thoughts or feelings – No case made out under Section 294 IPC [Paras 14-16].

Offences Under Sections 504 & 506 IPC – Essential Ingredients Not Met – Allegations did not establish an intentional insult likely to provoke breach of peace (Section 504) or a threat causing alarm (Section 506) – Held: Mere use of abusive language without proof of intent to provoke or cause alarm does not attract Sections 504 or 506 IPC – No case made out for prosecution under these sections [Paras 17-19].

Offence of Defamation Under Section 500 IPC – Role of Magistrate – Defamation is a non-cognizable offence – Held: Magistrate erred in directing police to investigate under Section 156(3) for a non-cognizable offence without following due legal procedure [Para 20].

Judicial Scrutiny – Magistrate Not a Mere Post Office – Orders Under Section 156(3) Must Be Reasoned – The Magistrate must determine the necessity of police investigation before directing it – Held: Orders under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. should not be passed mechanically; judicial scrutiny is mandatory to prevent abuse of process [Paras 23-25].

Impact of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – Changes to Section 156(3) Equivalent Provision – The newly enacted Section 175 BNSS introduces safeguards requiring an affidavit, a mandatory application to the Superintendent of Police, an inquiry by the Magistrate, and consideration of police submissions before ordering an investigation – Held: These changes codify judicial safeguards developed through precedent to prevent frivolous complaints [Paras 28-35].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The order of the High Court affirming police investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. is set aside – Held: No prima facie case made out against the appellant – Investigation quashed as an abuse of process [Paras 36-37].

Constitutional Law – Right to Dignity and Hygiene – Article 21 of the Constitution – Right to life includes the right to a hygienic environment, ensuring access to clean and safe toilet facilities – PIL filed to mandate the construction and maintenance of separate toilets for men, women, transgender persons, and persons with disabilities in all courts and tribunals – Held: Providing clean and hygienic toilets is a constitutional obligation under Articles 21, 47, and 48A – Directions issued to all High Courts and States/UTs to ensure compliance [Paras 1-9, 24-25].

Judicial Infrastructure – Construction and Maintenance of Toilets in Courts – PIL exposed deplorable conditions of existing toilet facilities in court premises, particularly at the District Court level – Lack of separate toilets for genders, poor maintenance, and inadequate accessibility for persons with disabilities highlighted – Held: High Courts and State Governments directed to construct and maintain toilets with appropriate facilities for all stakeholders, ensuring transparency in fund allocation and regular monitoring [Paras 7-9, 24-25].

Rights of Transgender Persons – Separate Toilets and Accessibility – Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 and Rules, 2020 – Held: Provision of separate toilets for transgender persons is integral to protecting their dignity and addressing discrimination – High Courts directed to ensure adequate facilities, including gender-neutral toilets, with clear signage [Paras 8, 25].

Global Practices – Public Sanitation Standards – Comparison with international benchmarks such as Singapore’s Happy Toilet Programme, UK’s British Toilet Association, and Japan’s Universal Toilet Initiatives – Held: India must adopt global best practices to ensure public health and hygiene in judicial premises, incorporating eco-friendly and inclusive designs [Paras 8.18-8.23].

Cited Precedents – Judicial Recognition of Hygienic Sanitation as a Fundamental Right – Vincent Panikurlangara v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 990 – National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 438 – Common Cause v. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1 – Bombay High Court in Milun Suryajani v. Pune Municipal Commissioner, 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 6256 – Additional references to global and national obligations for ensuring hygiene standards [Paras 8.12-8.16, 79-85].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Directions issued to High Courts, States, and UTs to construct and maintain separate, functional, and hygienic toilet facilities in all court premises within four months – Committees to be formed in High Courts to oversee implementation – Status report to be filed after four months [Paras 9-9.2.1].

Service Law – Promotion to District Judge – Merit-cum-Seniority – Suitability Test – Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service Rules – Appellants challenged the denial of promotion despite qualifying the suitability test, asserting that promotions based on a comparative merit list contradicted the governing rules – Supreme Court held: Promotions under the 65% quota must be based on suitability and not comparative merit – High Court’s decision quashed, and appellants entitled to promotion from the same date as their juniors promoted under the 30/05/2019 notification [Paras 1-6].

Suitability Test – Interpretation of Rules 4 and 5 of Jharkhand Superior Judicial Services Rules – Held: Rules prescribe that candidates securing a minimum of 40 marks are eligible for promotion – Comparative assessment is contrary to the merit-cum-seniority principle for the 65% promotional quota – Relying on Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta (2024 SCC Online SC 972), suitability should be judged individually and not by a merit list – Supreme Court affirmed appellants’ eligibility and ordered notional promotion with consequential benefits [Paras 4-6].

Promotion and Seniority – Retrospective Notional Promotion – Supreme Court directed the appellants’ promotion to be effective from the date their juniors were promoted under the disputed notification – Held: Appellants entitled to seniority, increments, and notional pay fixation but not back wages [Para 6].

Cited Precedents – Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta v. High Court of Gujarat (2024 SCC Online SC 972) – Held: Promotions under the 65% quota are based on suitability and not comparative merit – Comparative merit assessment invalidates the distinction between the 65% and 10% promotional quotas – Case relied upon by the Court to grant relief to the appellants [Para 4].

Decision – Civil Appeal No. 299 of 2025 – Appeal allowed – High Court of Jharkhand’s order set aside – Appellants granted notional promotion from the date of their juniors’ promotion with consequential service benefits excluding back wages [Paras 5-6].

Civil Procedure – Bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC – Maintainability of Second Suit – Plaintiff filed a second suit for specific performance after a prior suit for permanent injunction – Issue regarding whether both suits were based on the same cause of action – Held: The second suit was not barred under Order II Rule 2 as the cause of action in the second suit arose from subsequent events and was distinct from the first suit’s cause of action – High Court rightly restored the plaint in the second suit – Appeal dismissed [Paras 34-51, 75-92].

Order II Rule 2 CPC – Principles of Cause of Action – Held: To invoke Order II Rule 2, the causes of action in both suits must be identical in substance, not merely overlapping – Reliefs in the second suit could not have been claimed in the first suit due to the impossibility of obtaining such relief at that time – Decisions of Rajasthan High Court in Ramjilal v. Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, and Allahabad High Court in National Security Assurance Co. Ltd. v. S.N. Jaggi, affirmed this principle [Paras 75-77, 86-87].

Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC – Rejection of Plaint – Plaintiff's omission to seek relief in the first suit – Held: A plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) unless it is evident from the plaints of both suits that the omitted relief was based on the same cause of action – High Court’s restoration of the plaint in the second suit upheld [Paras 41, 44, 89].

Constitutional Right to Property – Article 300-A – Sale Agreement and Public Interest Litigation – Plaintiff’s agreement to sell was hindered by a government order prohibiting land transfers to third parties other than the appellant – The High Court’s subsequent quashing of the order provided a new cause of action for the plaintiff to pursue specific performance – Held: Constitutional rights under Article 300-A protected [Paras 43, 79-81, 85].

Cited Precedents – Applicability of Order II Rule 2 – Mohammad Khalil Khan v. Mahbub Ali Mian, AIR 1949 PC 78 – Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal, AIR 1964 SC 1810 – Virgo Industries (Eng.) Private Limited v. Venturetech Solutions Private Limited, (2013) 1 SCC 625 – Held: Causes of action must be materially distinct, and subsequent events can create new rights that justify a second suit [Paras 36-39, 86, 90].

Decision – Civil Appeals Nos. 372-373 of 2025 – Appeals dismissed – High Court’s order restoring the plaint in the second suit affirmed – Plaintiff entitled to pursue the second suit for specific performance and related reliefs – Trial Court to decide on merits within six months [Paras 87-92].