151. Closing of evidence – Setting aside of -- Petitioner/ landlord filed eviction petition, the delay in the proceedings, if any, would primarily prejudice the petitioner -- Five witnesses of the petitioner have already been examined -- No witness of respondent No.1/ tenant has been examined till date -- One of the witnesses that remains to be examined is the Clerk (Record Keeper) Nagar Council, although the summons issued to him were received back served yet the said witness did not appear and thus, bailable warrants were issued, however, the Court instead of enforcing the attendance of the said witness thereafter, did not proceed to do so – One last effective opportunity granted to complete his entire evidence, at his own responsibility subject Rs.10,000/- as costs. (P&H HC) Decided on: 29.08.2025

152. Supply of electricity -- Terrif – Fixation of – Power of -- A generating company and a distribution licensee cannot, by private agreement, execute a PPA on their own or stipulate tariff therein as per their choice, for supply of electricity within a State, without seeking the review and approval of the Electricity Regulatory Commission under Section 86(1) (b) of the Act of 2003. (SC) Decided on: 29.08.2025

153. Absence from duty – Dismissal of Constable from service -- Absence of the respondent from the duty on various occasions in a short tenure of service of around 7 years, is a gross indiscipline on the part of the respondent – No illegality in the order passed by the disciplinary authority whereby the services of the respondent have been dismissed. (SC) Decided on: 29.08.2025

154. Cruelty – Demand for dowry in any form is itself sufficient for Section 498-A of IPC being attracted – Demand made in any form either by the husband or by the relative of the husband would also attract Section 498-A of IPC – Even if the demand exhibits the conduct that would likely to drive the said woman being unable to bear such conduct would attract Explanation (a) – Likewise, harassing of a married woman with a view to coercing her or her relative to meet any unlawful demand would also fall within the mischief of the expression ‘cruelty’. (SC) Decided on: 29.08.2025

155. Disciplinary proceedings – Constable in CISF -- Appellant was issued an out-pass to enable him to visit the hospital between 10:00 AM to 12:00 noon on that day -- Instead of visiting the hospital, the appellant was found at the residential colony at a distance about 12 kms from his Camp – Appellant admitted that he had visited the residential colony to enquire about the quarters allotted to another constable -- He was confined by the civilians at the residential colony and it was only after the arrival of his superior, he was permitted to go – Appellant had indulged in some unwarranted activity by which the civilians were agitated thereby affecting the reputation of the Force amongst the civilians -- Penalty as modified by the Appellate Authority of reducing his pay-scale by one stage for a period of two years and depriving him of any increment during the period of reduction was found to be commensurate with the wrong committed – Not a fit case to exercise discretion under Article 136 -- Appeal dismissed. (SC) Decided on: 29.08.2025

156. Transfer of petition u/s 12 DV Act petition – Jalandhar to Hoshiarpur -- Generally the Courts take into consideration the convenience of the wife, while considering the transfer application relating to the matrimonial dispute, but however, it is not a thumb rule -- Respondent No.1/ wife residing in the matrimonial house at Hoshiarpur -- Applicant is facing trial in the criminal case, registered at the instance of respondent No.1, in the Courts at Hoshiarpur -- Considering these circumstances, petition transferred from the Jalandhar to Hoshiarpur. (P&H HC) Decided on: 29.08.2025

157. Closing of evidence – Witness not served – Coercive step – Duty of Court -- Once the witnesses have been ordered to be summoned, as per the list furnished by the one of the parties to the lis, then it is incumbent upon the Court concerned to ensure about summoning of the witnesses and if for one reason or other, witnesses are not making appearance, or their service is not effected, then the Court concerned is required to take coercive steps and proceed further. (P&H HC) Decided on: 28.08.2025

158. Interlocutory injunction -- Call has to be taken by the Courts for issuance of interlocutory injunction, at the time, when the existence of legal right is asserted by the plaintiff and there is alleged contest, qua the violation of this legal right and the same, as such remains uncertain, before the Court, till the evidence adduced, is to be appraised by the Court -- The purpose of interim injunction is to mitigate the risk of injustice to a person, knocking the door of the Court, during the interregnum period of resolvement of uncertainty, vis-a-vis, violation of legal right. (P&H HC) Decided on: 27.08.2025

159. Suit against Proprietor -- Rejection of plaint -- Proprietorship concern as party – Mandate of -- A proprietorship concern is not a juristic person -- Proprietorship concern cannot be equated either with a company or with a partnership firm – Order XXX deals with partnership basically, however, Rule 10 thereof refers to proprietorship – It makes very clear that proprietorship concern cannot sue but it can be sued – Whether proprietorship concern is sued in its name or through its proprietor representing the concerned is one of the same thing -- Order XXX Rule 10 CPC does not in any manner debar a suit being filed against the proprietor – Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law to decide the suit on its own merits. (SC) Decided on: 26.08.2025

160. Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (54 of 2002), Section 35 -- Provident Fund dues -- Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) -- Bank Charge over property – Priority of -- It would be appropriate that the High Court first deals with the issues raised by Axis Bank that it has first charge and priority over and above the EPFO to satisfy its dues from the secured property in view of Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act -- High Court will examine the priority of first charge amongst the EPFO and the secured creditors i.e. the Axis Bank and other two Banks, namely, State Bank of India and the State Bank of Travancore (now taken over by SBI) in view of Section 11(2) of the PF Act – Matter remanded back. (SC) Decided on: 26.08.2025

161. Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Agreement to sell of vehicle by registered owner – Reliance upon – Impleadment of buyer as necessary party – Permissibility of – Submitted that even after the accident, buyer had taken the vehicle on ‘Sapurdari’, thus he is in possession of the ‘offending vehicle’ and is the owner thereof on the basis of the agreement and he ought to have been impleaded as a necessary party by the learned Tribunal – Held, buyer never got the vehicle transferred in his name before the registering/ licensing authority – Since the vehicle continues to stand registered in the name of the petitioner, it cannot be held that buyer has become the registered owner of the said vehicle – Tribunal dismissed the application – No illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal – Revision dismissed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 26.08.2025

162. Validation of photocopy of document – Permissibility of -- Only original document can be validated not a photocopy of the document -- In cases, where parties are allowed to lead secondary evidence even then photocopy cannot be validated. (P&H HC) Decided on: 26.08.2025

163. Non-filing of written statement -- Defence struck off – Discrimination between defendants – Permissibility of -- Defendants no. 1 & 2 not filed written statement despite time granted under Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC -- Learned Civil Judge without providing any reason or explanation, chose to strike off the defense of the petitioner/ defendant No.1, while simultaneously granting defendant No.2 an additional opportunity to file their written statement – Held, it is blatant discrimination between the two defendants without any justifiable reason -- Such an order is manifestly illegal, and it reflects a grossly improper exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Civil Judge -- Impugned order set aside, revision petition allowed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 26.08.2025

164. Consolidation scheme – Challenge to -- Jurisdiction of Civil Court -- Decision of the Consolidation Authorities was earlier assailed in the Civil Writ Petition -- Findings recorded in Civil Writ Petition were assailed through SLP and that SLP was also declined by Hon’ble Apex Court -- So in case subsequently some fact emerged whereby it was found that the entire facts were not brought before the Court then the correct approach was to approach the Hon’ble Apex Court -- When respondents/ plaintiffs were having efficacious remedy of review before them, the Civil Court cannot be clothed with the jurisdiction -- Filing of this suit is certainly barred in view of the provisions of Section 44 of the Act, 1948 – Application for rejection of plaint allowed. (P&H HC) Reserved on: 21.08.2025 Decided on: 26.08.2025

165. Child abuse – Acquittal -- Appellant/ accused hit child with the school bag belonging to his own son – Held, it would still not be sufficient to hold the appellant guilty for the offence of “child abuse” punishable under Section 8 of the Act of 2003 -- Offence of child abuse necessarily presupposes an intention to cause harm, cruelty, exploitation, or ill-treatment directed towards a child in a manner that exceeds a mere incidental or momentary act during a quarrel -- A simple blow with a school bag, without any evidence of deliberate or sustained maltreatment, does not satisfy the essential ingredients of child abuse -- Medical officer in his cross-examination stated that the possibility of the injuries being caused due to a fall cannot be ruled out – Held, ex-facie the conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable u/s 8 of the Act of 2003 is unsustainable – Appellant acquitted. (SC) Decided on: 26.08.2025

166. Release on probation -- Appeal by complainant – Maintainability of -- A de facto complainant can prefer an appeal against the order passed by the learned Trial Court under Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act – Learned Appellate Court held that since the proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C. did not enable the complainant to file an appeal against the inadequacy of the sentence, therefore, the appeal does not lie u/s 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act – Held, section 11 (2) contains a non obstante clause and will prevail over the provisions of the CrPC -- Therefore, it is impermissible to import the provisions of appeal contained in the CrPC to the Probation of Offenders Act -- Matter remanded to the learned Appellate Court with the direction to rehear the matter on merits. Prithvi Raj’s case (2004) 8 SCC 303 relied. (H.P. HC) Reserved on: 18.8.2025 Decided on: 25.08.2025

167. Decree for specific performance – Extension of time to deposit amount – Whether amounts to modification -- Extension of time for payment does not amount to modification of the decree -- Court does not lose jurisdiction after granting a decree for specific performance, nor does it become functus officio -- Learned Court below ought not to have recorded a finding that, as specific time of two months had been granted for deposit of the balance sale consideration and the application for depositing the said amount was moved at a later stage, the same was liable to be dismissed – Order set aside, one month’s further time granted to the petitioner-plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration amount of Rs. 10,000/- in Court. Balbir Singh’s case (2025) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 19829 = 2025 INSC 81 relied. (P&H HC) Decided on: 25.08.2025

168. Delay in Execution – Expedite decision – Direction for -- Revision for issuance of direction to the learned Executing Court to decide the execution petition within a time bound manner period -- Executing Court requested to dispose of the execution petition as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 04 months, as any further delay may cause serious prejudice to the rights of the petitioners-land owners. (P&H HC) Decided on: 25.08.2025

169. Constitution of India, Article 32 -- Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 -- Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (59 of 1960) -- Stray dogs bites – Suo moto directions issued / Modified/ Clarified/ Supplemented (SC) Decided on: 22.08.2025

170. Scope of second appeal -- It is a settled proposition of law that in Punjab and Haryana, second appeals preferred are to be treated as appeals under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 and not under Section 100 CPC. (P&H HC) Reserved on: 20.08.2025 Decided on: 22.08.2025

171. Suit by un-registered partnership firm – Maintainability of suit – Objection as to non-compliance of Section (2) of Partnership Act -- Stage of -- It is settled that the provisions of Section 69 (2) of Indian Partnership Act, 1932 bear mandatory character -- Registration of a firm is to be a sine-qua-non for institution of suit falling within the mischief of Section 69 (2) of the Act -- Noncompliance has been held to be a jurisdictional defect -- It has also been held that the objection as to noncompliance of Section 69 (2) of Indian Partnership Act can be taken even at the stage of execution -- Non-compliance of Section 69 (2), if established, will go to the root of the controversy having effect on the jurisdiction of civil court to entertain the suit. (H.P. HC) Reserved on: 13.8.2025 Decided on: 21.08.2025

172. Adverse possession against private person – Protection of possession -- Writ jurisdiction -- Petitioners are claiming that they have perfected their title over the land in question by way of adverse possession -- All these pleadings are in the realm of Civil Court and if the owner of the land or some other person, may be at his behest or otherwise, is trying to disturb their possession, as is alleged, the petitioner can always go to the Civil Court and seek appropriate reliefs including police assistance -- Writ petition is not maintainable, the same is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Civil Court for the redressal of their grievance. (H.P. HC) Decided on: 21.08.2025

173. Disciplinary proceedings – Allegation of corruption – Removal from service with superannuation benefits -- Inquiry Officer appreciated the evidence led by five loanees who categorically deposed that they had paid money to the respondents for coordinating sanction of their loans despite their documents being deficit -- PW-6, Field Officer stated that all the accounts were irregular -- When respondent appeared in response to a show cause notice before imposition of penalty, points towards the direction where he apparently admitted his guilt and had sought mercy -- Leniency was shown by the Appellate Authority by reducing the penalty from ‘dismissal’ to ‘removal from service’ with superannuation benefits – High Court allowed the writ and respondent was directed to be reinstated with back wages – High Court order set aside, order passed by the Appellate Authority imposing punishment of ‘removal from service’ with superannuation benefits restored. (SC) Decided on: 20.08.2025

174. Bail by High Court – UAPA case -- High Court noticed that accused no. 11/ his connections with an organisation by the name of AL-Hind is not a banned organisation under the schedule to UAPA -- Apart from the above, impugned order by the High Court was passed on 21.04.2022 almost 3-1/2 years ago and as such, it may not be just and proper to interfere with the same at this stage -- Further, charges have not been framed so far and trial has not commenced – No justification to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court granting bail. (SC) Decided on: 20.08.2025

175. Temporary injunction – Finding on merit – Permissibility of – While dismissing the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC a categoric finding has been given by the Trial Court that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction which would amount to rejecting the suit at the stage of deciding the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC – Appeal also dismissed -- Held, impugned orders cannot be sustained, accordingly set aside. (P&H HC) Decided on: 20.08.2025

176. Amendment of written statement -- Amendment qua the detailing of the khasra numbers regarding a passage -- Application allowed, defendant-petitioners permitted to give the khasra numbers of the passage which already stands mentioned in the unamended written statement. (P&H HC) Decided on: 20.08.2025

177. Mode of partition -- Instrument of partition -- Mode of partition not assailed by the petitioner and challenge was laid only to the final partition -- It is settled law that until and unless the mode of partition is assailed by a party, it is precluded from assailing the same subsequently as well as the instrument of partition on the said ground. (H.P. HC) Decided on: 20.08.2025

178. Rejection of plaint -- A plaint can be rejected if it does not disclose a cause of action, if the relief claimed is under-valued and the plaintiff on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so, where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped and plaintiff on being required by Court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time fixed by the Court, fails to do so, where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law etc. (H.P. HC) Decided on: 20.08.2025

179. POCSO – Regular bail -- Challan filed on 18.04.2024 and supplementary Challan was filed on 29.06.2024 -- Trial was required to be concluded before 30.06.2025, in terms of Section 35 of the POCSO Act -- Charge-sheet was framed on 25.10.2024 -- After framing of charge, though dates repeatedly came to be fixed for recording the statement of prosecution witnesses, but not even a single prosecution witness has been examined -- Continued incarceration of bail petitioner during trial would not only amount to pre-trial conviction, but would also be violative of Article 21 – Bail allowed. (H.P. HC) Decided on: 20.08.2025

180. Multiple Appointments challenged -- Doctrine of severability – Detailed analysis – Requirements of -- Validity of an individual appointment must be assessed on the basis of the appointee's own merit, eligibility, and conformity to the applicable rules -- Courts must resist the tendency to issue blanket invalidations of entire batches of appointments merely on the basis of procedural infirmities that affect only a portion of the appointments – Principles of fairness, proportionality, and individual justice are foundational to administrative law and demand that a case-by-case analysis be undertaken before issuing sweeping orders of cancellation -- Where multiple appointments are challenged on general grounds, authorities and courts must undertake a detailed fact-specific analysis before concluding that all such appointments are void -- Doctrine of severability must not remain a mere theoretical doctrine but must guide real administrative action and judicial reasoning in service matters. (SC) Decided on: 19.08.2025

181. Acquisition of land -- Compensation for land acquired – Long pendency of Execution petition -- Execution application filed by the petitioners on 14.09.2022 is still pending and the petitioners are waiting to get their amount of compensation on the basis of order dated 16.03.2022 passed by this Court – The Court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge requested to dispose of the Executing Petition as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of next 04 months, as any further delay is going to cause serious prejudice to the rights of the petitioners/land owners. (P&H HC) Decided on: 19.08.2025

182. Rejection of plaint -- Ad-valorem court fee -- Sale deed – Challenge to – Plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 and 2 are owners in possession of 50% share of the property -- Challenge is to the sale deed and transfer letter executed by defendant Nos.2 and 3 in favour of defendant No.6-petitioner -- Plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 and 2 are neither the executant of the said documents nor they are seeking possession of the suit property as they are already in joint possession -- In the case of a non-executant of deed, who is already in possession of the property and seeks to get the document annulled then he would be required to pay court fees as applicable under Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act, 1870 – Held, there would be no requirement to affix ad valorem court fees – Application dismissed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 19.08.2025

183. Suit dismissed in default – Restoration of suit -- Dead bodies of the applicant’s relatives recovered, due to which he could not appear on the date fixed -- Trial Court ought to have considered the matter from the right perspective and should have restored the suit -- Matters should always, as far as possible, be decided on merits and petitions should not be rejected on mere technicalities -- Application for restoration filed by the petitioner/plaintiff/applicant allowed, and the suit is ordered to be restored to its original number. (P&H HC) Decided on: 19.08.2025

184. Contempt of Court – Delayed payments – As per order dated 17.01.2018 outstanding amount was be paid within a period of three months -- Payments commenced in 2019, well beyond the timeline fixed – Explanation tendered refers to administrative hurdles post-merger of bank and retrieval of records dating back over three decades -- While such circumstances cannot justify laxity -- Element of mens rea, essential for sustaining a charge of civil contempt, cannot be inferred merely from the factum of delay – Petitioner was dismissed in 1985 and secured favourable orders as early as 2004, attained the age of superannuation in or around 2006 -- A reasonable lump sum payment is warranted -- Rule discharged -- Petitioner compensated, respondent-Bank directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- within a period of eight weeks, failing which interest at the rate of 8% will be payable till the date of disbursement. (SC) Decided on: 19.08.2025

185. Temporary labelled employees – Long-term extraction of labour – Equal protection – Financial stringency/ Budget – Excuse of -- Duty of Government -- “Ad-hocism” thrives where administration is opaque -- Union and the State governments is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer -- It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions -- Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices -- Long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection -- Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines. (SC) Decided on: 19.08.2025

186. Stolen cash – Presumption -- Cash so recovered had no special or distinct identification characteristics and thus, the same could not be linked to amount allegedly stolen from the deceased even if such allegation was proved by tangible evidence -- To base a conviction u/s 411 IPC solely on the ground that both the accused were unable to account for being in possession of such huge amount of cash is both incorrect and untenable. (SC) Decided on: 19.08.2025

187. Declaration of the land as non-agricultural – Non- Registration of – Effect of -- Section 145 of the UPZALR Act does not cast any duty on the land owner to get it registered -- As per Section 145 of the UPZALR Act, it is the duty of the Assistant Collector-in-charge of the Sub-Division to forward a copy of the declaration made u/s 143 of the UPZALR Act to the Sub Registrar to do the needful -- Such registration is to be made free of cost notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Registration Act, 1908 -- No fee has to be paid as the relevant registration was free of cost -- Merely on account of deficiency by the officers, the appellant cannot be deprived of the benefits of the declaration so made. (SC) Decided on: 19.08.2025

188. Appointment of Local Commissioner – Right of parties -- Requirement of the provision is that it is the satisfaction of the Court which puts into motion the provision of Order XXVI Rule 9 – Said satisfaction obviously can also be on the basis of the application of the parties also -- But, the parties per se have no right under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC to call upon the Court to appoint a Local Commissioner as a matter of right to visit the site and thus collect evidence, which a party has not been able to place before the Court to prove its case -- Provisions of Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC are for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute and not creating any evidence in favour of either of the parties. (H.P. HC) Decided on: 19.08.2025

189. Rejection of plaint – Consideration of -- For the purpose of decision of an application moved under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the averments in the plaint and the documents attached therewith are to be considered -- Averments made in the written statement or in the reply to the application for rejection of plaint are not required to be taken into consideration -- Rejection of plaint is a drastic power and must be exercised only when the plaint, on its face, discloses no cause of action or is barred by law. (P&H HC) Reserved on: 24.07.2025 Decided on: 19.08.2025

190. Notice to Judgment debtor – Service through wife – Permissibility of -- It is argued that the petitioner was not personally served and, therefore, he deserves an opportunity to contest the execution proceedings by raising objections on the application under Order XXI Rule 66 CPC – Held, notice had been duly served upon the petitioner through his wife -- Despite such service, the petitioner failed to appear before the executing Court, and was rightly proceeded against ex parte -- No illegality or infirmity in the impugned order -- Civil Revision Petition dismissed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 18.08.2025

191. Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Assessment of income -- Rs.9,000/- per month assessed by the Ld. Tribunal – Deceased left behind his widow, three minor children and old aged parents -- Minor children have their entire life ahead of them -- Their education has to be taken care of as well as the living expenses of all the claimants -- Compensation should at least be sufficient to mitigate the financial difficulties the family is likely to face – Keeping in view the rising prices as well as the fact that the education of the minor children is still at the threshold, Court deemed it appropriate not to interfere in the income of the deceased as assessed by the Tribunal -- Argument that the income ought to have been assessed as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 rejected. (P&H HC) Decided on: 18.08.2025

192. Life and liberty – Right to live with person of choice/ Married man – Bigamy -- Corpus has stated that she would like to live with the person with whom she had eloped/ married man -- She cannot be treated like Chasser -- Corpus 'X' is more than 18 years/ adult -- No law that prevents her from living along with the said person -- Only the first wife can register a case against her husband and her if such an eventuality takes place, to prosecute them for bigamy -- The person whom she wants to live with has already left his first wife and is proposing to take a divorce – The Court cannot pontificate on matters relating to morality -- Police requested to release the Corpus 'X' after taking an undertaking from her that she is going to live with the person of her choice and also take an endorsement from the person with whom she is living that he has accepted the company of the Corpus -- Petition disposed of. (M.P. HC) Decided on: 18.08.2025

193. Summons u/s 70 of CGST Act -- Initiation of proceedings -- Mere issuance of summons does not imply that the Department has decided to proceed against the taxpayer for recovery of liability – At that stage Department still retains the discretion not to initiate any proceedings -- A mere contemplation or possibility of initiating action cannot be equated with “proceedings”, as doing so would undermine the framework of cross-empowerment under the Act. Even when a discovery is made during the search proceedings under Section 67 of the CGST Act, the Department is required to bring such proceedings to a definitive conclusion, either by issuing a show cause notice under Section 74 or by dropping the matter altogether. (SC) Decided on: 14.08.2025

194. Disclosure statement – Recovery therefrom – Evidential value -- While recovery u/s 27 of the Act can be a crucial piece of evidence, it cannot be the sole basis for conviction -- It is not substantive evidence -- It needs to be corroborated by other evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (Kerala HC) Decided on: 13.08.2025

195. Complaint under PMLA – Cognizance by Magistrate – Opportunity of hearing to accused – Requirements of -- Since the complaint has been filed after 01.07.2024, cognizance cannot be taken without conferring an opportunity of hearing to the accused – Ld. Special Judge, dismissed the application of the petitioner u/s 223 of BNSS, 2023, seeking hearing at the time of taking cognizance of the complaint -- Petition allowed -- Trial Court directed to afford the petitioner an opportunity to be heard before taking cognizance. (Delhi HC) Decided on: 13.08.2025

196. Permanent Lok Adalat – Mutual settlement proposal – Requirements of -- PLA(PUS) adjudicated the dispute on merits before proposing a settlement between the parties -- This is in clear breach of the procedure laid down under the Act – Determination of disputes under section 22C(8) has to be done by PLA (PUS), in case, the parties fails to arrive at mutual settlement and not other way around – Award set aside, matter remitted back to PLA (PUS). (P&H HC) Decided on: 13.08.2025

197. Amendment of plaint – Delayed application – Ground of -- No doubt the plaintiff-petitioner has been remiss in not filing the application for amendment earlier, however, the same cannot be a ground for denying the amendment especially in view of the fact that the evidence is yet to be started -- Application allowed subject to payment of ?10,000/- as costs. (P&H HC) Decided on: 13.08.2025

198. Closing of evidence by Court order – Setting aside of -- Petitioners-plaintiffs did not lead any evidence inspite last opportunities -- Submission that the omission on their part in not examining witnesses or leading evidence cannot be construed as deliberate or intentional, inasmuch as compromise talks were in progress between the parties -- Further submitted that the respondent-defendant had failed to disclose that his mother and sisters also have a share in the suit property, and upon the petitioners-plaintiffs coming to know of the same, the respondent-defendant had assured that he would clear the title in all respects, but failed to do so -- Impugned order set aside, learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), directed to give two effective opportunities to the petitioners-plaintiffs to conclude their entire evidence. (P&H HC) Decided on: 13.08.2025

199. Revision petition for issuance of direction to Trial Court for pronouncing the judgment and decree in terms of Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC -- Contends that the deliberate delay on the part of the respondents-plaintiffs is causing constant emotional disturbance and relentless anxiety to the petitioner, apart from paving the way for multiplicity of proceedings in the interregnum – Learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) directed to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible. (P&H HC) Decided on: 13.08.2025

200. Appointment of District Judges – Bar Vacancy – Eligibility of judicial officer, who completed seven year in Bar – Actual date of eligibility -- Two issues are substantial question of law as to the interpretation of Article 233(2) of the Constitution: (i) Whether a judicial officer who has already completed seven years in Bar being recruited for subordinate judicial services would be entitled for appointment as Additional District Judge against the Bar vacancy? (ii) Whether the eligibility for appointment as a District Judge is to be seen only at the time of appointment or at the time of application or both? Court refer the aforesaid issues for consideration of a Constitution Bench of five Judges of this Court. (SC) Decided on: 12.08.2025