List of Current Affairs

Source: Madhya Pradesh High Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justice Vivek Jain in the case of Shailendra Sharma and Others v. M/s Indus Residency Pvt. Ltd and Others (2026) modified the order of the Executing Court regarding the procedure to be followed when alleged impersonation of surety occurs in court proceedings, emphasizing the importance of judicial oversight in such matters. 

What was the Background of Shailendra Sharma and Others v. M/s Indus Residency Pvt. Ltd and Others (2026) Case? 

• The petitioners (decree holders) had obtained a decree of recovery of money against the respondents (judgment debtors) in a suit. 
• Against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, First Appeal No. 442/2022 was filed and was pending before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. 
• In terms of an interim order passed in the first appeal, the judgment debtors deposited part of the decretal amount of Rs. 35.25 lakhs before the Executing Court. 
• The Executing Court ordered that the amount be disbursed to the decree holders upon furnishing of solvent surety by one Jugal Kishore. 
• Later, it was revealed that the surety was of agricultural land on which there were as many as 9 sureties given by the same person. 
• Subsequently, Jugal Kishore himself appeared before the Executing Court and stated that he never furnished any such surety and that someone had impersonated him while furnishing the surety for Rs. 35.25 lakhs. 
• The judgment debtors then filed an application under Section 379 BNSS (corresponding to Section 340 CrPC) seeking prosecution of the decree holders and the impersonating surety under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. 
• On 18.11.2025, the Executing Court passed an order directing that the matter of impersonation be enquired into by police authorities, and if the police found the surety bond to have been fraudulently furnished, they should register an FIR and proceed further. 
• The decree holders challenged this order through the present petition, arguing that the Executing Court should not have left the discretion to register FIR to the police authorities. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court noted that the alleged offence was committed by producing an impersonating surety before the Executing Court for getting disbursed the part decretal amount of Rs. 35.25 lakhs. 
• The Court observed that a police officer cannot directly register a crime for offences under Section 215 BNSS once the offence is committed in or in relation to a proceeding in the Court. 
• As per Section 379 BNSS, the Court has to cause preliminary enquiry and then can make a complaint in writing. 
• The Court found that in the present case, the Executing Court had not made any enquiry, nor recorded any prima-facie satisfaction, and had simply directed the police authorities to carry out an investigation and submit a report. 
• While acknowledging that the Court in its discretion could direct police authorities to investigate the matter and furnish a report, the Court held that the discretion to register FIR should not have been left at the discretion of the police authorities. 
• The Court emphasized that it was for the Court to apply its mind after receiving the preliminary enquiry report from the police authorities. 
• The Court modified the impugned order dated 18.11.2025 to the extent that the concerned police authority of Police Station, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal may investigate the matter, but before registering any FIR, the investigation report shall be furnished before the Executing Court. 
• The Court directed that FIR shall be registered only under orders of the Executing Court, and not suo-motu by the police authorities. 

What are Sections 215 and 379 of BNSS? 

About Section 215 BNSS (Formerly Section 195 of CrPC): 

• Section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with "Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence." 

Key provisions: 

No Court shall take cognizance without proper complaint for: 

• Offences punishable under BNS Sections 206 to 223 (excluding Section 209) - these relate to contempt of lawful authority of public servants. 
• Abetment, attempt, or criminal conspiracy to commit such offences. 
• Such cognizance requires complaint in writing from the concerned public servant or their administrative superior or authorized public servant. 

For offences committed in or relating to court proceedings: 

• Offences under BNS Sections 229 to 233, 236, 237, 242 to 248, and 267 when committed in or in relation to any court proceeding. 
• Offences under BNS Section 336(1), Section 340(2), or Section 342 when committed in respect of documents produced or given in evidence in court 
• Criminal conspiracy, attempt, or abetment of such offences. 
• Cognizance requires complaint in writing from that Court, or an officer authorized by that Court, or a superior Court. 

Withdrawal of complaint: 

• Where complaint is made by a public servant under clause (a), any superior authority may order withdrawal. 
• Copy of withdrawal order must be sent to the Court. 
• No further proceedings shall be taken after receipt of withdrawal order. 
• Withdrawal cannot be ordered if trial in first instance has concluded 

Definition of "Court": 

• Includes Civil, Revenue, or Criminal Courts 
• Includes tribunals constituted under Central or State Acts if declared to be a Court for this section's purposes 

Subordination of Courts: 

• A Court is deemed subordinate to the Court where appeals ordinarily lie from its decrees or sentences 
• For Civil Courts with no appeal, subordinate to Principal Court having original civil jurisdiction in that area 
• Where multiple appeal courts exist, the Appellate Court of inferior jurisdiction is the superior 
• Where appeals lie to both Civil and Revenue Courts, subordination depends on nature of case 

About Section 379 BNSS (formerly Section 340 of CrPC): 

• Section 379 of BNSS outlines the "Procedure in cases mentioned in section 215." 

Key provisions: 

When Court may initiate inquiry: 

• Court may act upon an application made to it or on its own motion (otherwise). 
• Court must form opinion that inquiry is expedient in the interests of justice. 
• Applies to offences under Section 215(1)(b) - offences committed in or relating to court proceedings. 
• Offence must appear to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court, or in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in that Court. 

Procedure after preliminary inquiry: 

• After conducting such preliminary inquiry as the Court thinks necessary, the Court may: 
• Record a finding that an offence has been committed. 
• Make a complaint thereof in writing. 
• Send the complaint to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction. 
• Take sufficient security for appearance of the accused before such Magistrate. 
• If the alleged offence is non-bailable and Court deems necessary, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate. 
• Bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate. 

Power of superior Court: 

• If a Court has neither made a complaint nor rejected an application for making such complaint. 
• The superior Court (within meaning of Section 215(4)) may exercise the power conferred under sub-section (1). 
• This allows hierarchical oversight in the complaint process. 

Signing of complaint: 

• If the complaining Court is a High Court: complaint signed by an officer appointed by the Court. 
• In any other case: complaint signed by the presiding officer of the Court or by an officer authorized in writing by the Court. 

Definition: 

• "Court" has the same meaning as in Section 215 (includes Civil, Revenue, Criminal Courts and specified tribunals). 

Key distinction from normal criminal procedure: 

• Police cannot directly register FIR for these offences. 
• Court must conduct preliminary inquiry and apply its judicial mind. 
• Court must record prima facie satisfaction before making written complaint. 
• Ensures judicial oversight prevents frivolous or motivated prosecutions. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma in the case of Sri Mukund Maheswar & Anr. v. Axis Bank Ltd. & Ors. (2026) held that the Registry cannot question a petitioner's decision to implead particular parties as respondents, emphasizing that such matters fall within the exclusive domain of the judiciary. 

What was the Background of Sri Mukund Maheswar & Anr. v. Axis Bank Ltd. & Ors. (2026) Case? 

• The case arose from a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in a SARFAESI dispute. 
• The petitioner alleged fraudulent and collusive conduct by a court-appointed Commissioner in taking possession of a secured asset in violation of the SARFAESI Act and rules. 
• The Telangana High Court Registry raised objections to the prayer clause and the array of parties impleaded in the petition. 
• The Division Bench of the High Court, agreeing with the Registry's objections, rejected the writ petition and directed the return of the papers. 
• Aggrieved by the High Court's decision to reject the petition on procedural grounds, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court held that the Registry cannot make inroads into areas within the exclusive domain of the judiciary and seek clarification as to why a particular party has been joined as a respondent. 
• The Court emphasized that the petitioner, being dominus litis (master of the suit), is empowered to decide who is to be joined as a party and who is not. 
• The Court observed that unnecessary parties could be deleted by the High Court referring to principles flowing from Order I Rule 10, CPC, and that if any party has been mischievously joined, it is open to the High Court to deal with the situation appropriately on the judicial side. 
• The Court expressed that "We are pained to observe that there has been an abandonment of its judicial role by the High Court", pointing out the complacency on the High Court's part in failing to exercise its judicial discretion. 

Court's Directions: 

• The appeal was allowed, and the writ petition was revived before the High Court. 
• The objections raised by the Registry stand overruled, and consequently, the impugned order was set aside. 
• This resulted in the revival of the writ petition, which shall be duly registered and marked as defect-free. 
• The High Court's Chief Justice was directed to list the petition before a Division Bench other than the bench from which the impugned order arose. 
• The new bench shall hear the matter in accordance with law. 

What is the Doctrine of Dominus Litis? 

About:  

• The Doctrine of Dominus Litis, a Latin term, translates to “Master of the Lawsuit”. 
• Originating from the principles of civil procedure, it establishes the party who has control over the litigation process. 
• The Doctrine of Dominus Litis grants the plaintiff the right to choose suit parties, yet this right is not absolute, subject to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)'s Order 1, Rule 10.  
• The court may add/remove parties at its discretion, ensuring all necessary parties are present for a comprehensive resolution. 
• The court assesses impleaded parties' direct interest and their contribution to resolving the dispute, retaining discretion to accept or reject claims based on circumstances; no one has an automatic right to be impleaded. 

Purpose of Doctrine of Dominus Litis: 

• "Dominus Litis" refers to the person who owns or controls a legal suit and holds a genuine interest in its outcome.  
  • This individual stands to gain from a favorable judgment or bear the consequences of an unfavorable one.  
• The doctrine is applied to someone who, though not an original party, intervenes and assumes control over one side of the case, being treated as a liable party by the court.  
• The court's power under Order 1, Rule 10 of CPC governs the addition of parties, emphasizing that the plaintiff, as the "dominus litis," cannot be compelled to litigate against an undesired party.  
• However, the court, in ensuring a comprehensive resolution, may order the inclusion of necessary parties even without a formal application.  
• The application of the theory of Dominus Litis should be cautious, and the court's authority to add parties is extensive under Order 1, Rule 10(2) CPC. 

Applicability and Non- Applicability of Doctrine of Dominus Litis: 

• Applicability: 
  • Section 92 CPC, Proceedings: 
    • The court has the authority to include a party as a defendant in a suit under Section 92 of CPC, similar to any other lawsuit.  
    • The right to sue is governed by Order 1, Rule 10 CPC. 
  • Specific Performance Suit: 
    • The plaintiff initiating a specific performance suit for a sale contract is considered Dominus Litis and cannot be compelled to involve parties against whom they do not wish to litigate, unless compelled by legal requirements. 
• Non-Applicability: 
  • Partition Suit: 
    • In a partition suit, the strict application of the principle of Dominus Litis is not applicable because both the plaintiff and defendants are sharers. 
  • Execution Petition: 
    • In the case of Changanti Lakhmi Rajyam and others v. Kolla Rama Rao (1998) it was held that Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is relevant to suits and appeals but does not apply to execution proceedings.  
• Limited Applicability 
  • Cause of Action: 
    • In Mohannakumaran Nair v. Vijayakumaran Nair (2008), Supreme Court clarified that the application of the doctrine of Dominus Litis is limited to causes of action falling within Sections 15 to 18 of the CPC.