List of Current Affairs

Source: Allahabad High Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justice Jaspreet Singh of Allahabad High Court in the case of Devendra Srivastava and Ors. v. M/s Eifel Recreation Club (P) Ltd. (2025) dismissed a revision petition challenging the trial court's refusal to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) on grounds of limitation. 

What was the Background of Devendra Srivastava and Ors. v. M/s Eifel Recreation Club (P) Ltd. (2025) Case? 

• The plaintiff company (Eifel Recreation Club) filed a suit for specific performance of contract and perpetual injunction in November 2021. 
• An agreement to sell was executed between the parties on 12.12.2012, whereby the defendants agreed to sell property for a total consideration of Rs. 2,65,00,000. 
• Out of the total consideration, Rs. 2,40,00,000 had been paid by the plaintiff, with Rs. 25,00,000 to be paid at the time of executing the sale deed. 
• The agreement stipulated that the sale deed would be executed within one year from the date of agreement, i.e., by December 2013. 
• The plaintiff claimed that a supplementary agreement was executed on 06.09.2013, and an additional Rs. 24,00,000 was paid to the defendants. 
• The plaintiff alleged that the defendants continued to assure execution of the sale deed but sought time to clear an encumbrance on the property. 
• On 17.09.2021, the defendants through their counsel refused to execute the sale deed and stated they had forfeited the consideration already paid. 
• The defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that it was barred by limitation. 
• The defendants argued that the suit should have been filed within three years from December 2013 (as per Article 54 of the Limitation Act 1963), which expired in December 2016, but the suit was filed in 2021. 
• The trial court rejected the defendants' application on 06.05.2022, holding that the issue of limitation was a mixed question of law and fact requiring evidence. 
• The defendants challenged this order through a revision petition under Section 115 CPC before the Allahabad High Court. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court outlined that while dealing with applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the averments in the plaint and supporting documents can be considered, not the defence. 
• The averments in the plaint must be taken as true, and the Court must undertake a meaningful reading of the plaint without compartmentalization or dissection. 
• The Court emphasized that Article 54 of the Limitation Act 1963 has two parts: (i) when a date is fixed for performance, limitation runs from that date; (ii) when no date is fixed, limitation runs from when the plaintiff receives notice that performance is refused. 
• Whether the supplementary agreement was actually executed, whether it had the capability of extending the limitation period, and what impact the encumbrance had on the property were all matters requiring evidence. 
• The Court held that these contentious issues could only be ascertained after parties lead evidence at trial. 
• The Court found that the trial court rightly concluded that the issue of whether the plaint fell within the first part or latter part of Article 54 could only be decided at trial. 
• The Court clarified that its observations were made only for examining the issue within the narrow ambit of Order VII Rule 11 CPC and should not be taken as an expression of opinion on merits. 
• The Court directed that the trial court will decide the matter on merits based on evidence led by the respective parties. 
• The revision petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

What is Order VII Rule 11 of CPC ? 

• Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is a significant procedural provision that empowers courts to reject a plaint at the threshold stage without proceeding to trial. This rule serves as a filtering mechanism to prevent frivolous, vexatious, or legally untenable suits from consuming judicial time and resources. 
• The provision enumerates six specific grounds on which a court may reject a plaint: 
  • Where the plaint does not disclose a cause of action (Rule 11(a)). 
  • Where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff fails to correct the valuation within the court-specified timeframe (Rule 11(b)). 
  • Where the plaint is insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff fails to supply the requisite stamp paper within the court-specified timeframe (Rule 11(c)). 
  • Where the suit appears from the statements in the plaint itself to be barred by any law, including limitation laws (Rule 11(d)). 
  • Where the plaint is not filed in duplicate (Rule 11(e)). 
  • Where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9 regarding copies of the plaint (Rule 11(f)). 
• The rule includes a proviso that restricts the court's ability to extend time for correcting valuation or supplying stamp paper unless the plaintiff was prevented by exceptional circumstances and a refusal would cause grave injustice. 

Source: High Court of Punjab and Haryana 

Why in News? 

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Sukhwinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and Others (2025) dismissed a writ petition seeking compassionate appointment, holding that the authorities had rightly considered material factors including the petitioner's marital status, husband's government income, existence of siblings, and separate residence to determine the absence of immediate financial distress. 

What was the Background of Sukhwinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and Others (2025) Case? 

• The petitioner's father was employed as a Work Charge Bulldozer Operator under the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) and died in harness on 26.03.2001. 
• The petitioner, a married daughter, applied for compassionate appointment under the policy dated 27.10.2022. 
• Her claim was initially rejected on the ground that being a married daughter, she was not eligible under the policy dated 21.11.2002. 
• Pursuant to an earlier order of the High Court in CWP No. 9447 of 2025, the matter was reconsidered. 
• The claim was rejected afresh vide order dated 06.10.2025 on the grounds that: 
  • The petitioner had four siblings. 
  • She resided at a different address from her mother. 
  • Questions arose regarding her dependency and the genuineness of the financial crisis. 
• The petitioner approached the High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the rejection order and direction for appointment on compassionate grounds on a Class-III post. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court reiterated well-settled legal principles that compassionate appointment is not a right, but a concession granted to tide over sudden financial crisis arising from the death of the sole breadwinner, meant to provide immediate relief rather than backdoor entry into employment. 
• The Court cited key Supreme Court precedents: 
  • Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi Devi (2009): Rules relating to compassionate appointment permit side-door entry and must be given strict interpretation. 
  • SAIL v. Madhusudan Das (2008): Compassionate appointment is a concession, not a right, and criteria must be satisfied by all aspirants. 
  • Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K. (2025): Where the family is not in immediate financial distress, the very basis for compassionate appointment ceases to exist. Financial condition, availability of other means of sustenance, and genuine indigence are critical factors. 
  • State Bank of India v. Somvir Singh (2007): Terminal benefits, investments, monthly family income including family pension, and income from other sources must be considered to decide whether the family is living in penury. 
• The Court found that the rejection order dated 06.10.2025 had properly considered relevant factors: 
  • The petitioner is married with her husband in government service having disclosed annual income. 
  • Four siblings exist, some of whom are employed. 
  • Separate residence from mother raised legitimate doubt regarding continuous dependency. 
  • Policy requires individual merit-based examination considering social and economic factors. 
• The Court held that the contention regarding siblings and address being irrelevant was misconceived, as these factors directly relate to determining genuine penury and dependency. 
• The Court noted that the petitioner's father died in 2001, with the claim pursued after two decades. Citing Canara Bank (supra), the Court emphasized that compassionate appointment should not be granted after long delays as the immediacy of crisis is lost. 
• The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding that compassionate appointment is a relief strictly governed by policy and judicial discipline, not an automatic entitlement. 

What is Compassionate Appointment? 

About: 

• Compassionate appointment is a scheme providing employment to a dependent family member of a government employee who dies in harness or becomes permanently incapacitated during service. 
• The primary objective is to provide immediate financial relief to the bereaved family facing sudden economic crisis due to loss of the breadwinner. 
• It is an exception to the normal recruitment process and not governed by the regular principles of merit-based selection. 

Legal Character: 

• Compassionate appointment is a concession or privilege, not a vested right or legal entitlement. 
• It must be granted strictly in accordance with the applicable policy and rules of the employer organization. 
• The scheme permits a side-door entry into public employment, and therefore requires strict interpretation. 
• Courts cannot compel employers to grant compassionate appointment contrary to their policy. 

Essential Requirements: 

• Immediate Financial Crisis: The family must be facing genuine and immediate financial hardship requiring urgent assistance. 
• Death in Harness: The employee must have died while in service or become permanently incapacitated. 
• Dependent Family Member: The applicant must be a dependent family member as defined in the relevant policy. 
• Timely Application: The claim should be made within a reasonable time to address immediate need; long delays undermine the urgency basis. 
• Genuine Indigence: Authorities must verify that the family has no other sufficient means of livelihood or support.