151. Agreement to sell of year 1990 – Suit for specific performance decreed – 35 year delayed payment of balance sale consideration – Equitable/ Discretionary relief : -- Equitable answer does not lie either in denying specific performance altogether, or in enforcing the contract mechanically at the 1990 price – Where there is a long passage of time and substantial rise in prices, the Court, while upholding the decree for specific performance, may mould the relief by directing the purchaser to pay an enhanced amount so that the enforcement of the contract does not operate harshly against the vendor nor confer an unfair bonanza upon the purchaser. -- Discretion u/s 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (pre-amendment) is meant precisely to address such situations and to secure what is substantive justice between the parties. -- An amount equal to seventy times (double the time gap between date of agreement and order) balance sale consideration under the agreement is payable by plaintiff/ buyer within three months -- In case the plaintiff fails to deposit the aforesaid amount of within the time stipulated, the decree for specific performance shall stand vacated. (P&H HC) Reserved on: 07.11.2025 Decided on: 20.11.2025

152. Rejection of plaint – Issue of limitation/ resjudicata/ Order II Rule 2 of the CPC -- High Court restored the suit dismissing the application for rejection of plaint -- Contention that High Court observed that Trial Court should proceed with the case on merits, thereby implying that the issues concerning limitation, res judicata and those arising under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC ought not to be considered at all – Held, this is not an implication of the judgment of the High Court, nor can such a construction be given to its observations -- All that the High Court meant was that the suit is restored on the file of the Trial Court and that it has to be decided in accordance with law, which would include all the above issues apart from the issues on the merits of the case. (SC) Decided on: 20.11.2025

153. Execution -- Decree for permanent injunction – Subsequent dispossession – Restoration of possession – Permissibility of -- Finding of fact was recorded that decree holder was in possession of the suit property, the same carried presumption of her possession as on the date of filing of suit till the date of its adjudication -- In any subsequent execution based on dispossession at the hands of judgment debtor, the non-mentioning of specific particulars in the shape of date or month of forcible dispossession was not of much relevance – Order for warrant of possession, upheld. (P&H HC) Decided on: 20.11.2025

154. Photocopy of document – Validation of – Permissibility of -- Ld. Civil Judge proceeded to validate the photocopy of the agreement to sell on the condition that the petitioner deposits the deficient stamp duty along with a penalty quantified at ten times the sale consideration -- One page of the original document is available while the remaining page is only a photocopy – Held, even if a portion of the document exists in its original form, the instrument as a whole cannot thereby be deemed an original document -- In such circumstances, the composite document must necessarily be treated as a copy -- A copy whether partial or complete cannot be validated for the purposes of stamping -- Impugned order suffers from a manifest and material illegality, as the learned Civil Judge has exercised jurisdiction not vested in him under the law – Order set aside. (P&H HC) Decided on: 20.11.2025

155. Blanket anticipatory bail – Permissibility of -- When no criminal case or FIR is registered against a person, the grant of anticipatory bail is impermissible as doing so would amount to issuing a blanket protection against all possible future accusations -- Law does not contemplate granting such omnibus relief u/s 482 of the BNSS nor can a blanket order be passed to restrain the authorities from arresting an individual in the absence of a specific and existing criminal case. (P&H HC) Decided on: 20.11.2025

156. Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Deceased 48 years old – Homemaker – Notional income – Accident, occurred on 24.02.2015 -- Notional income of the deceased assessed at Rs.15,000/- per month – Since housewives fall under the category of self-employed and considering the age of the deceased (48 years), the correct addition to the income of the deceased will be 25% (future prospects) -- Total Compensation assessed at Rs.21,38,350/- -- Amount shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the date of realization. (P&H HC) Reserved on: 17.11.2025 Decided on: 20.11.2025

157. Assignment of Decree for Specific Performance -- Does not require Registration -- When the decree itself which is for specific performance does not create or purport to create any right, title or interest in any immovable property, the question of registering an instrument assigning such a decree cannot arise -- Section 17(1)(b) would also not be applicable -- Assignment deed assigning the decree of specific performance did not require registration. (SC) Decided on: 19.11.2025

158. Appointment of Arbitrator – Prima-facie existence of arbitration clause -- High Court at the time of reference u/s 11 of the Act is only to see prima facie the existence of an arbitration clause and is not to conduct any mini-trial -- Since neither the arbitration clause nor the terms and conditions of the auction are in dispute, Court deems it fit and proper to allow the present petition and appoint a Sole Arbitrator. (P&H HC) Decided on: 19.11.2025

159. Cancellation of arms license -- Cartridges were expended only during testing and cleaning of the weapon -- Petitioner has specifically denied that the petitioner has ever used the weapon for public firing in any wedding or any other public place – Held, it is necessary that the authority forms an opinion as to whether any licensed fire arm was either not carried in the proper protective gear or was brandished, discharged or whether any blank firing took place in any public place or fire arm free zone -- Such considerations and opinions are sine qua non for invocation of Rule 32 under the Rules, 2016 -- District Magistrate has not given any finding with regard to any of the conditions enumerated under Rule 32, violation of which would allow the authority to pass an order for cancellation and seizure -- Appellate authority also failed to indicate as to how Rule 32 is applicable in the case and also failed to give a clear finding with regard to violations of any of the conditions as enumerated under Rule 32 – Orders quashed, licence of the petitioner restored. (All. H.C.) Decided on: 19.11.2025

160. Interim protection in Appeal – Permissibility of -- Just because the original suit came to be dismissed, that does not mean that in the pending appeal, the appellate court cannot grant appropriate relief -- Application seeking to maintain the status quo filed before the appellate court cannot be dismissed solely because the suit for specific performance stood dismissed -- Reliance placed by the first appellate court on Order XLI Rule 5, while declining to grant status quo, is grossly misplaced. -- appeal is considered a continuation of the original suit, and the appellate court has co-extensive power to grant appropriate interim relief to prevent irreparable injury and preserve the status quo pending the final disposal of the appeal. -- interim relief is designed to aid the main relief and ensure that the proceedings are not rendered infructuous. It aims to prevent irreparable harm that might be caused while the case is pending final determination. -- grant of appropriate relief is a discretionary power of the appellate court, and the same must be exercised judicially based on the well-settled principles of a prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience. (SC) Decided on: 18.11.2025

161. Criminal jurisprudence – Police complaint against public servant by Gram Pradhan – Maintainability of -- No provision in the Cr.P.C., which bars a citizen from filing a complaint for prosecution of a public servant or any other person who has allegedly committed an offence -- No specific provision in the 1984 Act which limits the eligibility of the person making the complaint – Held, High Court manifestly erred in law in holding that since the Gram Pradhan was not the competent authority to lodge an FIR, the action of the Special Judge in taking cognizance and summoning the accused is bad in law -- Impugned order passed by the High Court set aside. (SC) Decided on: 18.11.2025

162. Suit for permanent injunction -- Amendment in name of defendant -- Typographical mistake -- Amendment is only for correction of a typographical mistake -- Application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for amendment allowed subject to payment of ?30,000 as costs to be paid to the defendant-respondent -- Payment of costs shall be a condition precedent. (P&H HC) Decided on: 18.11.2025

163. Summons not received back – Decision of appeal on merit – Permissibility of -- Court, duly noticed in the first paragraph of the impugned order that the notice issued to the respondent/ judgment debtor had not been received back -- It further went to notice that as per learned counsel representing the appellant/ decree-holder, the respondent-judgment debtor was sitting outside the Court room, but despite calls having been made, no one appeared on behalf of the respondent/ judgment debtor -- Court then proceeded to hear and allow the appeal -- Held, Court of Additional District Judge adopted a procedure unknown to law -- Once the respondent therein had not been served, there was no occasion for the Court to make calls and then proceed to decide the appeal without service having been effected -- Impugned order not sustainable, set aside. (P&H HC) Decided on: 18.11.2025

164. Compensation to employee – Injury – Negligence of employee – Effect of -- Commissioner erred in dismissing the application holding that the claimant suffered injuries on account of his own negligence -- Trite it is that the 1923 enactment deals with accidents arising out of and during the course of employment -- The concept is based upon ‘strict liability’ -- There is no room for assessing contributory negligence -- Order passed by the Commissioner, cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be set aside. (P&H HC) Decided on: 18.11.2025

165. Offence under Insecticides Act – Limitation – Period of limitation begins from the date of the receipt of the report of the Public Analyst – Period of limitation is 03 years from the said date – However, the time spent in obtaining sanction is to be excluded – Sample was taken on 26.08.2011 – Report of the Public Analyst was made available is dated 28.09.2011 – Sanction for prosecution was applied on 06.08.2012 and was granted on 05.10.2012 – Sanction was received by the CAO on 15.10.2012 – Approximately 02 months elapsed between when sanction was sought and when it was granted – Complaint was instituted only on 23.04.2018 after a gap of 06 years, 06 months and 25 days from the date of the receipt of the report of the Public Analyst – Complaint case is hopelessly barred by time – Complaint and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom quashed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 18.11.2025

166. Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Deceased, was a minor aged merely 12 years -- A minor, by virtue of tender age, is not engaged in employment, and therefore rigidly categorizing him as a “non-earner” would defeat the object of awarding just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- Proper method of determining compensation under the head “loss of income” is to adopt, at the very least, the minimum wages notified for a skilled worker in the relevant State at the relevant time -- Notional monthly income of the deceased assessed at Rs.10,300, being the minimum wages of a highly skilled worker notified for the relevant period in the State of Haryana – Future prospects 40%, multiplier of 18 applied – 50 deduction towards personal expenses -- Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/- -- Funeral Expenses Rs.18,150/- -- Loss of Consortium Filial : Rs. 48,400 x 2 Rs.96,800/- -- Total comes to Rs.16,90,460/- -- Interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of claim petition allowed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 18.11.2025

167. Suit for specific performance -- Fabricated document in Court – Enquiry ordered by Trial Court – Challenge to -- Sale agreement dated 04.04.2000 against the defendants -- Executants of the agreement passed away on 20.01.1995 and 05.07.1990 respectively – Submission that unless and until any concrete evidence is made available on the record in support of such contentions, any order, issuing directions for conducting an enquiry for ascertaining the correctness of the execution of the document, cannot be passed – Held, if any litigant approaches the Court with fabricated documents, a thorough enquiry is required in order to ascertain the truth -- This is because filing of false documents is a serious matter that can be considered a fraud played on the Court, potentially leading to legal consequences for the litigants – No merit in instant petition, dismissed. (Raj. HC) Decided on: 18.11.2025

168. Excess payment to pensioners – Recovery of -- Permissibility of -- Petitioner is a pensioner and no material has been brought on record by the respondent/Corporation to show that any fraud or misrepresentation was committed by the petitioner while receiving the pension -- On the contrary, the explanation furnished is that excess pension payment was made to the petitioner, which is an administrative lapse -- In that eventuality, the petitioner cannot be blamed as he has not mislead the respondent/Corporation in order to secure higher amount of pension – Recovery from retired employees or their family pensioners impermissible -- Respondents directed to refund the amount if already recovered from the petitioner from the date of recovery till its actual realization, along with interest at the rate @ 6% per annum, within a period of three months. (P&H HC) Decided on: 18.11.2025

169. Arbitral award – Interest on Pre-award/ Post award period – Mandate of -- Award is in two parts, the first part i.e., clause (a) deals with passing of an award which would include interest upto the date on which the award is made, while the second part, i.e., clause (b) deals with the grant of interest on the sum awarded by the arbitral tribunal -- Intent behind granting the pre-award interest is to compensate the claimant for the loss suffered from the time the cause of action arose till the passing of the arbitral award -- Similarly, the intent behind grant of post-award interest is to discourage the award-debtor from delaying the payment of the arbitral amount to the award-holder -- Grant of interest during the pre-award period is subject to the agreement as regard the rate of interest or unpaid sum between the parties – Grant of post-award interest under Section 31(7)(b) is mandatory -- Only discretion which the arbitral tribunal has is to decide the rate of interest to be awarded -- Where the arbitrator does not fix any rate of interest, then the statutory rate, as provided in Section 31(7)(b), shall apply -- Unless there is an express bar contained in the agreement, the arbitrator possesses the discretion and has jurisdiction to award interest including the post-award interest. (SC) Decided on: 18.11.2025

170. Offence under SC/ST Act – Anticipatory bail -- Essential ingredient for attracting Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC & ST Act is that such statement must be made within public view -- If a prima facie case is not made out, anticipatory bail can be granted -- Bar of Section 18 of the SC & ST Act does not apply where any prima facie case is not made out -- Appellant held entitled for the benefit of doubt, as prima facie the allegations contained in the FIR with regard to commission of any offence u/s 3 & 4 of the SC & ST Act, are not established -- Appeal allowed, directions given that in the event of arrest, the appellant shall be released on anticipatory bail to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer -- Appellant will join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer. (P&H HC) Reserved on: 17.11.2025 Decided on: 18.11.2025

171. Non-filing of protest petition – Maintainability of complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. – Quashing of proceedings -- Double jeopardy -- Charge-sheet by police in FIR, and negative report against appellant – Respondent no.2/ complainant failed to file protest petition, chose to file a private complaint invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. after a lapse of two and a half years -- Question of double jeopardy would arise -- Appellants have made out a case for quashing of the proceedings -- High Court ought to have invoked its jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. by quashing the proceedings, which are nothing but vexatious -- Proceedings pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, qua the appellants quashed. (SC) Decided on: 18.11.2025

172. Conviction in cheque bounce complaint – Appeal -- Suspension of sentence – Condition of deposit of 20% of compensation – In M/s Coromandel International Limited v. Shri Ambica Sales Corporation, (2025) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 20750, the Larger Bench/Division Bench has given cumulative answers (P&H HC) Decided on: 17.11.2025

173. Closing of evidence by Court order – Setting aside of -- Evidence of the petitioner was closed by the Court was in any way illegal or suffers from any material illegality or irregularity -- Considering the pace at which the learned Civil Judge is proceeding and the fact that even after closing the evidence of the petitioner, respondent/plaintiff has been granted 07 opportunities for rebuttal evidence -- Interest of justice requires, one opportunity to be granted to the petitioner to conclude his evidence at his own responsibility -- Petitioner allowed one effective opportunity subject to the payment of cost of Rs.50,000/-. (P&H HC) Decided on: 17.11.2025

174. Eviction of tenant -- Landlord – Execution of decree – Issue of ownership – Effect of -- A landlord need not be the owner of the property -- Subsequent events would not come in the way of the petitioner from getting the judgment and decree executed against the respondents, who are admittedly tenants of the petitioner. (P&H HC) Decided on: 17.11.2025

175. Additional evidence -- Video footage and photographs -- Placing on record – On application moved by complainant, the learned trial Court permitted the complainant to place certain documents on record, i.e. the video footage and photographs of the incident – Claimed by the complainant that in the video footage and photographs, the incident has been recorded and given to the Investigating Officer also, but the Investigating Officer having been under the influence of accused-petitioners, has not collected the above mentioned evidence – Held, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the learned trial Court in permitting the complainant to bring the above mentioned documents on record -- At this stage, when permission to produce the above mentioned documents has been accorded, the admissibility of the above mentioned documents cannot be looked into -- Appreciation of above mentioned point can take place at the time of final adjudication of the trial. (P&H HC) Decided on: 17.11.2025

176. Dacoity -- To sustain a charge of dacoity under Section 310(2) of the BNS [Section 395 of the IPC], the offence of robbery [Section 309 of the BNS/Section 392 of the IPC] must first be established -- Robbery, in turn, is an aggravated form of theft or extortion -- A foundational element of ‘theft’ as defined under Section 303 of the BNS [Section 378 of the IPC] is ‘dishonest intention’, i.e., the intention to cause wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another. (SC) Decided on: 17.11.2025

177. Senior Citizens case -- defect of coram non judice – Issue not raised earlier – Effect of -- Once an order is found to have been passed by an authority lacking jurisdiction or lawful coram, it is a nullity in the eyes of law and cannot be sustained, irrespective of whether such a plea was initially taken -- Matter remanded to the Maintenance Tribunal for fresh adjudication. (P&H HC) Decided on: 17.11.2025

178. Recovery on disclosure – Relevancy -- Section 27 is an exception to the preceding Sections 25 and 26 -- Language further indicates that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person who is in custody of the Police in connection of an offence, it must relate distinctly to the fact so discovered -- For relevancy, the “facts thereby discovered” is preceded with the words “so much of such information, whether it amounts to confession or not as relates distinctly” -- “distinctly” indicates directly, indubitably, strictly and unmistakably, apparently, used in Section 27 to limit and define the scope of probable information -- Only that much information as is clearly connected with the fact discovered can be treated as relevant under the phrase ‘facts discovered’. (SC) Decided on: 14.11.2025

179. Auction sale – Challenge to -- Once a sale is confirmed by the competent authority, rights accrue in favour of the auction-purchaser which cannot be extinguished except in cases of proven fraud or substantial irregularity – Auction and its subsequent confirmation have not been shown to suffer from any material irregularity, mistake or fraud as contemplated u/s 38 of the Revenue Recovery Act -- Auction-purchaser paid the full purchase amount on the day of sale and the sale was confirmed only after due procedure and in the absence of any valid challenge -- Issuance of the sale certificate and registration of the property in the purchaser’s name, followed by subsequent transfers to bona fide purchasers, confer finality on the transaction. (SC) Decided on: 14.11.2025

180. Divorce – Desertion -- Cruelty – Irretrievable breakdown of marriage -- Parties got married on 20.05.2009 -- A male child was born from wedlock on 07.03.2010 -- High Court granted divorce primarily on the strength of the reasons, accepting the oral narratives of the respondent/ husband with respect to the alleged mental cruelty suffered by him -- High Court not adverted to the wife/ appellant’s plea that she was thrown out of the matrimonial home and was forced to live separately -- Child is in custody of the appellant from the very beginning -- In the light of such a plea, which she duly supported in her deposition, it was imperative upon the High Court firstly to determine as to: (i) Whether the appellant was thrown out of the matrimonial home or she herself voluntarily deserted the respondent? (ii) Whether the withdrawal of the first divorce petition wherein also the divorce was sought on the ground of cruelty, would bar the filing of second petition on the same cause of action? (iii) Whether cruelty was committed by the respondent in not allowing the appellant to join the matrimonial home and/or by denying any maintenance, love, affection, and care to the minor child of the parties? It is imperative upon the Family Court or the High Court to determine as to who out of the two is responsible for breaking the marital tie and forcing the other to live separately -- Unless there is cogent evidence for willful desertion or refusal to cohabit and/or look after the other spouse, the finding of marriage having been broken irretrievably is likely to have devastating effects, especially on the children -- Appeal allowed in part, impugned judgment of the High Court set aside and the matter remitted to the High Court for a fresh consideration in accordance with law. (SC) Decided on: 14.11.2025

181. Insurance policy/ claim – Repudiation -- Subsequent discovery of damage or corrosion cannot be used to repudiate claim -- Boiler in question was certified and registered; the insurance policy was issued after the certificate of registration was provided; and the accident occurred while the certificate of registration was subsisting -- Burden was heavy on the insurer to prove that the boiler was not worthy of insurance cover or that such cover was obtained by misrepresentation or suppression of material facts or by playing fraud -- Nothing of the kind has been pleaded or proved by the insurer -- Cannot repudiate the claim as it would defeat the main purpose of the insurance contract. (SC) Decided on: 13.11.2025

182. POCSO -- Evidence establish the commission of offence – When the accused present in court removed his mask, the victim got frightened and did not even look at the accused -- Victim was required to be sent out of the courtroom, and recording of the evidence was stopped -- When the victim was found to be normal after some time, the recording of evidence though commenced had to be discontinued having regard to the mental status of the victim (PW-1) -- At the time when the victim was called again for tendering her evidence with her mother, she was crying and was not able to speak anything in the court as the victim PW-1 was frightened by the presence of the accused, hence, her examination was closed -- Whole sequence of events in course of recording of evidence of PW-1, was tale-telling -- Shock related to the happening of the incident which continued with the victim post-incident made its statement in the trauma-filled behaviour of the victim who was a 4 year-old girl -- Conviction of the appellant recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court upheld – Sentence reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 6 years with fine. (SC) Decided on: 13.11.2025

183. Cancellation of bail – Once bail has been granted by a competent Court, the same can be cancelled only when there is cogent material showing that the accused has misused the concession of bail, has tampered with evidence or there has been a subsequent supervening circumstance warranting such cancellation -- Mere reiteration of allegations forming the basis of FIR or apprehension of misuse is not sufficient ground for cancellation of bail -- Cancellation of bail already granted requires demonstration of supervening circumstances such as misuse of liberty, tampering with evidence, intimidation of witnesses or deliberate evasion of the judicial process – Mere dissatisfaction with the reasoning of the Court which has granted the bail or the seriousness of the offence by itself, is not sufficient to recall such an order. (P&H HC) Decided on: 13.11.2025

184. Consumer – Incorporate company -- Definition of “person” in Section 2(1)(m) is inclusive and not exhaustive -- Therefore, there can be no doubt that even an incorporated company could be a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) read with Section 2(1)(m) of the 1986 Act. (SC) Decided on: 13.11.2025

185. Appointment of Constable -- Forged degree – Dismissal from service -- Once on the basis of a forged degree/ certificate, a person gets appointment in the uniformed service of the country, that being the police, which is supposed to uphold the rule of law, the act of the respondent is uncondonable -- The further fact which is admitted is that there is absolutely, no rebuttal by the respondent that the certificate/ degree presented by him before the appellants at the time of his appointment and on the basis of which, he was appointed as a Constable, is genuine -- Punishment of dismissal from service restored. (SC) Decided on: 12.11.2025

186. Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Consortium -- Estranged husband – Right of -- At the time of the death of the deceased, the appellant was her legally wedded husband, although it appears that they were living separately -- Question for consideration, therefore, is whether the appellant, being the legally wedded but estranged husband, is entitled to any compensation under the head of loss of consortium – Held, appellant, being the legally wedded husband of the deceased, is entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur’s case (2021) 11 SCC 780 relied. (M.P. HC) Decided on: 12.11.2025

187. Order 8, Rule 6A -- Counter claim against the co-defendant cannot survive and the same has to be rejected. (SC) Decided on: 12.11.2025

188. Redemption of usufructuary mortgage – Limitation -- When there is a usufructuary mortgage, the period of limitation does not run from the date of creation of the mortgage but from the date of payment of mortgage, either out of the usufructuary or partly out of the usufructuary or partly on payment of deposit by mortgager as provided u/s 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 -- Till then the period of limitation would not start under Section 61(a) of the Schedule to the Limitation Act -- As such mere expiry of the period prescribed thereunder could not extinguish the mortgager’s right of redemption and thereby the right of mortgagee to seek declaration of title and ownership over the mortgage property stands untouched. (SC) Decided on: 12.11.2025

189. Death of tenant – Subsequently death of Successor – Right of other Legal heirs -- Wife is alive and living with her husband upto the date of his death and therefore, she was only entitled for succession of tenancy -- On the death of said successor/ wife tenancy will not devolve upon his any legal heirs -- Other respondents have no justifiable claim for continuing in possession of the property under the garb of tenancy created in favour of Tenant, which was succeeded by his wife after his death -- Respondents are liable not only to be evicted and also to pay use and occupation charges for their unauthorized possession on the prevailing market rate. (H.P. HC) Reserved on: 24.06.2025 Date of decision: 11.11.2025

190. Family Courts Act, 1984 (66 of 1984), Section 14 -- Divorce -- Adultery -- Reliance upon photographs – Divorce by Family court -- Family Court may receive as evidence any report, statement, documents, information or matter that may, in its opinion, assist it to deal effectually with a dispute, whether or not the same would be otherwise relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Wife not denying that she was not there on photographs, stated that said photographs have been created by using some trick; who has created these false photographs and by what method, has not been stated, only a general statement has been made to avoid confrontation with said photographs – Husband had evidence of wife's adultery on her mobile phone -- He transferred said pictures in his mobile phone -- Photographer who developed photographs was also examined in Court -- No error in the judgment passed by Family Court by placing reliance on the photographs. (M.P. HC) Decided on: 11.11.2025

191. Appointment of Lambardar – Age – Education -- There is no hard and fast rule that a particular person i.e. younger in age or elder in age or more qualified or less qualified is to be appointed as a ‘Lambardar’ -- The best choice is the one who can effectively serve as a Lambardar of the village concerned. (P&H HC) Decided on: 11.11.2025

192. SARFAESI proceedings – Suit for declaration and permanent injunction -- Rejection of plaint -- Plaintiff has neither raised any loan from the bank nor the plaintiff is a guarantor in the issue which has led to the action having been initiated by the bank under the 2002 Act -- Plaintiff approached the Civil Court seeking a declaration that gift deed alleged to be executed and registered by the GPA holder and thereafter mortgage deed, in the year 2015 are void abinitio, false and fictitious documents and a result of fraud committed by defendants No.1 to 3 in connivance with each other -- In light of this prayer of declaration, a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant-bank to misuse the process of law to take the possession of the suit premises has also been prayed for -- Invoking jurisdiction under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC and throwing out the plaint at the very initial stage, would be a very-very dangerous step as it would take away the right of the plaintiff to agitate the cause before the appropriate For a -- The issues raised in the suit, cannot be decided under Section 17 of the 2002 Act – Trial Court dismissed application under order VII Rule 11 -- Revision dismissed. (H.P. HC) Decided on: 11.11.2025

193. Bonafide purchaser – Failure to make enquiry – Effect of -- Subsequent purchasers had sufficient notice of the facts that an ATS dated 28.04.2000 existed; the names and addresses of the original vendees; that an earnest money amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/- had been paid by the original vendees to the original vendors; that the original vendors had sought to terminate the ATS due to their inability to execute the sale deed in favour of the original vendees on account of a status quo order; that the date of actual termination could not have coincided with the date of notice; and that deemed termination would have arose only if the original vendees had failed to claim the earnest money within one month; and that despite the issuance of the notice of termination in 2003, the original vendees continued to contest the impleadment application in the Original Suit No. 30 of 2001 until 2005 -- These circumstances should have reasonably aroused suspicion or at the very least prompted further inquiry by any prudent bona fide purchaser -- Yet the subsequent purchasers despite having ample opportunity to become aware of these facts abstained from making any such inquiries -- It is therefore beyond cavil that the subsequent purchasers cannot take shelter under Section 19(b) of the Act of 1963. (SC) Decided on: 10.11.2025

194. Appointment of Lambardar – Younger in age – Candidature of -- Difference in age between the appellant and respondent No. 4 is only of two years which cannot be made the basis to contend that 37 years old respondent No. 4 is incapable for discharging the duty on the post of Lambardar. (P&H HC) Decided on: 10.11.2025

195. Corruption case -- Sanction by Competent authority -- In case the trial Court finds that the sanction has been issued by a competent authority, the trial shall proceed -- However, in case the conclusion is otherwise, the trial Court shall return the chargesheet to the investigating agency for procuring fresh sanction from the appropriate authority. (SC) Decided on: 10.11.2025

196. Compensation in railway accident -- Unauthorised crossing of railways tracks – Contributory negligence -- Effect of -- Even if the deceased persons were crossing the railway tracks unauthorizedly to reach to other platform, the claim for compensation u/s 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, may still be maintainable -- Contributory negligence or unauthorized entry alone does not automatically absolve the railway administration of liability, unless the case falls within the exceptions provided viz. suicide, self-inflicted injury, own criminal act, intoxication, or natural cause. (M.P. HC) Reserved on: 15.10.2025 Decided on: 10.11.2025

197. Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Minor Driver – No driving licence – Driven without consent – Ground of -- U/s 3 read with Section 4 and 5 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, no person below the prescribed age can drive a motor vehicle, and the owner of such vehicle is under a statutory duty to ensure that the vehicle is not driven by a person who does not hold a valid licence -- Both the owner and the driver are real brother -- Duty to keep the vehicle safe and not accessible to an unlicensed person lies squarely on the owner -- Owner cannot escape liability by merely stating lack of consent -- Breach being fundamental and directly contributing to the cause of the accident, the insurer is entitled to be exonerated from liability to indemnify the claimants -- Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation to the claimants in the first instance and recover the same from the owner and driver thereafter. (M.P. HC) Decided on: 10.11.2025

198. Section 16(1)(g), (n) -- No instruction from client – No a withdrawal of Vakaltnama – Ex-parte decree -- Counsel who represented the defendant had not withdrawn the Vakalatnama but had only claimed no instructions and along with the pursis had annexed letter sent to his client -- As per the appellate court finding there was no claim of the defendants that the letter sent by their counsel was not served upon them -- In such circumstances, if no instructions are provided by a litigant to his advocate, it is the fault of the litigant not of the advocate -- Further, there is nothing on record that any proceedings were initiated against the advocate for his misconduct -- Neither withdrawal of Vakalatnama was permitted by the Trial Court nor the pursis prayed for its withdrawal -- Defendant cannot take advantage of his own wrong was a plausible view based on materials available on record. (SC) Decided on: 08.11.2025

199. Rejection of plaint – Court its own motion -- If a plaint has missing or deficiency of fact/s on the basis of which a given cause of action intended to be agitated can be said or assumed to be constituted, then a plaint is self-warranting its rejection sooner than later, be it on court’s own indulgence or on asking of a defendant. (J&K&L HC) Decided on: 08.11.2025

200. Detention -- Article 22(5) mandates that each ground for detention must be individually specified and not vague, ensuring transparency and accountability in the detention process -- Grounds must not be vague, indefinite or general -- Vague allegations make it impossible for the detenu to understand the reasons and effectively challenge the detention -- Vagueness of grounds of detention vitiating the order of detention -- On this ground alone, the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside (J&K&L HC) Reserved on: 30.10.2025 Decided on: 08.11.2025