The Rajasthan High Court held that a person who was not a party to a partition suit and claims property independently is not barred by Order XXIII Rule 3-A or Section 96(3) CPC from challenging the resulting compromise decree, by separate suit, appeal with leave or an application. But a woman's disputed claim to be the deceased owner's widow could not be decided on a Section 151 application (paras 18, 20-25).
The Rajasthan High Court refused bail to a man found with 180 grams of mephedrone during a 10 pm search of a house without a warrant. The SHO had recorded the information and his grounds for not getting a warrant before the search and sent them to his superior, which was prima facie compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act (paras 12-15). As commercial quantity was involved, the Section 37 bar applied (para 17).
The Rajasthan High Court refused to quash an FIR against a man accused of appearing before trial courts as an advocate without enrolment, holding that no one may practise or represent himself as an advocate unless enrolled with the State Bar Council under the Advocates Act, 1961 (para 5). It refused his counsel's mid-hearing request to withdraw the petition and dismissed it with costs of Rs 50,000 (paras 2, 6).
The Rajasthan High Court refused to quash a forgery and cheating FIR against a man claiming a company's land under an agreement to sell, though civil suits by both sides were pending. The agreement was neither admitted nor shown to have been paid for, and the police had prima facie found it forged, so the dispute could not be called purely civil (paras 11, 16-17).
Noting that calling for case diaries routinely delays bail hearings by 15-20 days, Justice Ravi Chirania of the Rajasthan High Court directed the office of the Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General to call for a factual report on the FIR as soon as a bail application is filed, preferably within 3-7 days (paras 2, 7). Bail pleas in petty and other offences are then to be decided on that report unless the Court needs the case diary (para 7).
The Rajasthan High Court set aside a civil court's refusal to register a suit for permanent injunction until court fee was paid on market value as a declaratory suit, holding that an assertion in the plaint that title had already accrued by adverse possession does not, at the registration stage, make the suit one for declaration (paras 12-13, 35-36). Threshold scrutiny of court fee cannot become a mini-trial (para 16).
The Rajasthan High Court upheld a trial court's order allowing a defendant to amend his written statement after issues were framed but before evidence began, holding that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC is not a mechanical bar and that an amendment elaborating an existing defence, including a maintainability objection, may be allowed where it neither changes the suit nor causes irreparable prejudice (paras 4.2, 4.4, 7.4, 8).
The Rajasthan High Court held that departmental proceedings against a government employee cannot continue after his death when no final penalty was imposed in his lifetime, because they are personal to the delinquent employee (paras 15, 18-19). It quashed a 2022 charge-sheet against a deceased physical training instructor and directed the State to consider his family's claim to service and retiral benefits uninfluenced by it (paras 23-24).
The Rajasthan High Court held that a dumper seized by the police cannot be released merely because the Motor Vehicles Act case against its driver has ended, as confiscation proceedings by the Mining Department are separate (para 9). Following its judgment in Phusaram v. State of Rajasthan, it left the owner free to apply afresh to the Magistrate under Section 503 BNSS, who must first call for the Mining Department's report (paras 7, 12).
The Rajasthan High Court upheld a trial court's refusal to take a handwriting expert's report on record in a suit for specific performance, holding that the defendant had pleaded only that signatures were obtained on a false pretext, not that they were forged, so the report would introduce an unpleaded issue (paras 6.11, 6.14, 8). Evidence can support a pleaded case but cannot supply its foundation (para 6.15).
The Rajasthan High Court upheld the rejection of a son's suit claiming a 1/9th share by birth in agricultural land his father had inherited from the grandfather under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, holding that property so inherited is held individually unless an HUF or coparcenary character is specifically pleaded (paras 6.10-6.12). His khatedari right must also first be declared by the revenue court (paras 7.4-7.5).
The Rajasthan High Court set aside a Commercial Court's order quashing an arbitral award in favour of United Spirits, holding that the Section 34 court re-appreciated evidence, relied on documents outside the arbitral record and allowed a set-off across two separate annual supply contracts. The award was restored, reduced for a computational error; the Court also flagged a prima facie case on unpaid customs duty (paras 13-23, 31-33).