Pre-emption—Waiver and Accrual of Right—Second Appeal—Attesting Witness—Punjab Courts Act, 1918, Section 41—A party cannot be held to have waived or acquiesced in a right which they did not possess at the time of the alleged waiver or acquiescence—The right of pre-emption accrues only when a party becomes a co-owner of the property in question. (Points A, B) In the context of pre-emption rights, mere attestation to an agreement to sell does not amount to a waiver of such rights if the attesting witness had not yet acquired the right of pre-emption at that time—Therefore, evidence of witnessing an agreement cannot be construed as surrendering rights that are not yet vested. (Points D) Under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, second appeals need not necessarily frame a question of law ...

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989—Section 18—Bar on Anticipatory Bail—Allegations Must Be Specific—Appeal Allowed—Under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, 1989, anticipatory bail is barred if the FIR discloses the essential ingredients of an offence under the Act—However, the allegations must be specific and clearly articulate the offence to invoke this bar. (Para 7) Vague or nonspecific allegations, such as the mere use of “casteist remarks” without detailing the actual words used, coupled with no prima facie evidence of insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate, do not attract the bar under Section 18. (Paras 7, 8) Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act criminalize intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a Scheduled Caste/...

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 311—Recall of Witnesses—Scope and Exercise of Discretion—The power to recall witnesses under Section 311 CrPC is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously to ensure a just trial and proper adjudication of truth, not to fill gaps in prosecution or to prejudice the accused—Recall is not a matter of course and requires strong, valid reasons beyond mere observations of fair trial, balancing interests of all parties, including witness hardship and trial delay. (Paras 23, 24, 27, 28, 32) An application to recall witnesses solely to correct a typographical error in the victim’s date of birth was rightly dismissed by the trial court and upheld by the High Court, as such a minor correction, raised as an afterthought, did not demonstrate any miscarriage of justice or...

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 319—Summoning Additional Accused—Scope, Conditions and Judicial Discretion—Under Section 319 CrPC, a court may summon additional persons to face trial if, during inquiry or trial, strong and cogent evidence arises indicating their complicity—mere suspicion or probability is insufficient—The threshold of satisfaction is higher than at the stage of framing charge, though evidence need not be cross-examined. (Para 8, Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab) This power extends to individuals not named in the FIR, not charge-sheeted, or even discharged during investigation, including those declared innocent by the SIT—The trial court is not bound by such investigative conclusions if prima facie evidence necessitates their inclusion. (Paras 4, 8) Section 319 CrPC may...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 7 Rule 11, Order 8 Rule 1—Striking Off Defence—Delay in Filing Reply—Scope of Discretion in Non-Commercial Disputes—Role of Commercial Courts Act, 2015—Where the tenant-petitioner failed to file a reply to a rent petition within the prescribed time, the Rent Controller struck off the defence—The tenant challenged this through a revision petition—The High Court granted a final opportunity to file the reply, subject to costs, cautioning that non-compliance would lead to dismissal of the revision—The Court also directed expeditious disposal of the original matter. (Paras 1, 2, 3, 6) Under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, amendments to the CPC introduce a mandatory and strict timeline regime for commercial disputes (Section 16, Section 2(c)), particularl...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 41 Rule 27—Additional Evidence—Appellate Stage—Admissibility of Prior Judgment—Limitations on Second Appeal—Suit for Declaration Without Possession Under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, additional evidence at the appellate stage is permissible only if the applicant shows that, despite due diligence, the evidence could not be produced at trial—In the present case, the plaintiff sought to introduce a previous judgment to support ownership claims, but the applicant was aware of the judgment during trial and failed to explain the delay—Hence, the appellate court rightly rejected the application. (Paras 6, 7) As per the Evidence Act, 1872, judgments from previous litigation can be admitted only under specific conditions, none of which were met—Moreover, the ad...

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—Section 15(1)—Renewal of Driving Licence—Validity During Renewal Window—No Recovery Rights for Insurer—Where an application for renewal of a driving licence is filed within 30 days before the date of expiry, such licence is deemed to be valid, and the driver is considered to hold a legally enforceable licence even if the actual renewal occurs after an accident, provided the accident occurs within the renewal window. (Paras 3, 6, 8) In the present case, the driver filed for renewal one day before the licence’s expiration—The accident occurred during this period—The Insurance Company’s plea seeking to avoid liability or invoke recovery rights under the insurance policy was rejected, as the statutory deeming provision under Section 15(1) ensured that the driver...

Limitation Act, 1963—Section 5—Condonation of Delay—Appeals under Commercial Courts Act, 2015—Strict Compliance Required—Government Not Entitled to Special Treatment—In appeals filed under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, a 60-day limitation period is prescribed for filing appeals from orders of District Judge-level Commercial Courts to the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court—The Limitation Act, 1963, particularly Section 5, permits condonation of delay if sufficient cause is shown—However, mere bureaucratic delays or administrative inertia by government bodies do not constitute sufficient cause—Government litigants are not entitled to preferential treatment. (Points A, D, F) The Supreme Court in Borse Brothers Engineers overruled earlier decisions (e.g...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 51, Order 21 Rule 37—Execution of Decree—Arrest and Detention in Civil Prison—Mandatory Procedure—Judicial Safeguards Must Be Followed In the context of execution proceedings under Section 51 and Order 21 Rule 37 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the Court reiterated that no arrest warrant can be issued against a judgment debtor in a money decree without first issuing a notice to show cause—The requirement to provide an opportunity for the judgment debtor to explain why they should not be detained in civil prison is mandatory—Any direct issuance of an arrest warrant without compliance with this procedure is legally unsustainable. (Point A) While the Supreme Court has emphasized the need for timely disposal of execution petitions, the Court held that this...

Hindu Succession Act, 1956—Section 22—Pre-emption Right of Co-heir—Validity of Transfer Pending Litigation—Lis Pendens—Preferential Right of Co-owner Upheld. The Court affirmed the preferential right of a co-owner under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, to pre-empt a transfer of jointly inherited property—Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Babu Ram vs. Santokh Singh, it held that Section 22 applies to agricultural property as well, thereby protecting the statutory right of a co-heir to purchase the interest of another co-heir before it is sold to a third party—(Para 5) The Court further held that any sale of the disputed property made during the pendency of a pre-emption petition is governed by the doctrine of lis pendens and is therefore subject to the outcome of t...