#revision petition

The High Court ruled that a trial court's refusal to grant police aid for enforcing an interim injunction is revisable under Article 227 where the plaintiff was forcibly dispossessed during the suit. It directed police assistance to restore possession, holding that interim orders must be effectively enforced to prevent self-help. This strengthens protection for plaintiffs facing forceful dispossession pending litigation.

West Bengal State Consumer Commission ruled that notice receipt date must be counted in 45-day limit under Section 13 CPA 1986 and that forums cannot condone delay beyond this window. It upheld the District Forum’s rejection of a time-barred version.

WB State CDRC set aside a district order that bundled a review application on the written version with main complaint, holding threshold issues must be heard separately and expeditiously under CPA 2019. This protects consumers from unnecessary delay.

The Delhi HC set aside the Special Court’s dismissal of a disability harassment complaint, holding that ignoring post-RPwD Act allegations made the order unsustainable. It remanded the case for a fresh review under Sections 92 and 84 of the RPwD Act, 2016.

The NCDRC upheld Tata AIG Life Insurance’s repudiation of a claim after finding the insured concealed a pre existing cardiac condition and resynchronisation therapy, stating that non disclosure justifies claim rejection under Section 21(b) CPA 1986.

The NCDRC ruled that disclosure duty under utmost good faith is triggered by the policy issuance date, not by any retrospective risk commencement date. It upheld the five lakh rupee claim with nine percent interest and added compensation, reinforcing protection for policyholders against unjust repudiation.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a litigant cannot avoid responsibility for non-appearance by blaming counsel’s negligence under CPC Order 9 Rule 7. The ruling reinforces the duty of parties to actively monitor their cases, affecting litigants who rely solely on counsel for case updates.

Delhi HC ruled that Section 151 CPC cannot be used to file additional documents after the 15-day period for leave to defend under Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 expires, reinforcing the strict deadline for tenants and landlords in rent-control eviction suits.

Maharashtra CDRC held that public notice may be issued under Order 5 Rule 20 CPC and Section 38(9)(a) CPA when ordinary service fails, allowing the revision petition to proceed and clarifying service for complainants and credit societies.

The Gauhati HC held that rejecting a Section 311 CrPC witness-summoning petition may be an intermediate order if it affects the final judgment, allowing a Section 397 CrPC revision to challenge such denial of vital witness evidence.

The Uttarakhand State Consumer Commission ruled that the 30-day period to file a written statement under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 begins only upon receipt of the complete complaint with all annexures, not from the date of mere notice. The District Commission's order closing the opposite party's right to file a written statement was set aside, and the complainant was directed to furnish the full paper book within 30 days.

The Madras HC held that a claim for refund of a Rs 2 lakh advance under a 2004 sale agreement is barred once the three-year period under Article 113 of the Limitation Act lapses. Since Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act creates a charge only after sale completion, buyers must sue within that window or forfeit the advance.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that a Section 319 CrPC application to summon additional accused is permissible only when the trial record contains strong, cogent evidence. Accordingly, it dismissed the petition where the allegation was uncorroborated, tightening the test for summoning extra accused.

Charges under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 34 IPC were upheld at the charge-framing stage because the court said a prima facie case based on the material record, including supplementary statements, suffices. This clarifies that detailed proof is not required until trial, guiding prosecutors and defence in dowry-death matters.

A dismissal of a complaint for procedural default does not extinguish the power to treat a subsequent petition under CrPC s.156(3) as a new FIR, even when the facts are identical. This safeguards complainants by ensuring procedural lapses cannot shield alleged offences.