17 October 2025 Legal Updates

CBI INVESTIGATION MUST BE ORDERED ONLY IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES; MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE IN RECRUITMENT DISPUTES: SUPREME COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Legislative Council U.P. Lucknow & Ors. vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors.

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• October 16, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi

Facts of the Case

• Respondents challenged the selection process for various posts in the Secretariat of Legislative Council, Uttar Pradesh, pursuant to Advertisement No. 1/2020 dated September 17, 2020, alleging the process was unfair, arbitrary, and collusive. The Single Judge directed that future Class-III posts in the Assembly and Council be filled by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission, and ordered necessary amendments to recruitment rules within three months.
• A Special Appeal was filed against this order, which the Division Bench clubbed with another writ petition that sought a high-level inquiry into alleged manipulation and favouritism in recruitment. The Division Bench referred the matter to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for preliminary enquiry and directed registration of the case as a suo motu Public Interest Litigation.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Division Bench was justified in directing registration of a separate suo motu PIL while hearing a Special Appeal?
• Whether the facts warranted a CBI enquiry as per established judicial guidelines?

Key Legal Principles

1. When Can Courts Direct CBI Investigation?

• Courts must have sufficient material to reach a prima facie conclusion that CBI inquiry is needed, and must examine pleadings to determine if the material justifies such an inquiry. The power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously, and only in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instill confidence in investigations, or where incidents have national/international ramifications.
• An order directing CBI investigation should not be passed routinely or merely because a party has levelled allegations against local police.

2. Standards for CBI Investigation

• Courts must examine whether involvement of persons is prima facie established based on material on record, and mere sweeping remarks are insufficient to direct CBI investigation unless prima facie disclosure of commission of criminal offence is made out.
• In recruitment-related controversies, it would not be appropriate to direct CBI investigation unless allegations are so outrageous and perpetrators so powerful that investigation by State Police would be ineffectual.

Court's Reasoning

• Neither the writ petitions nor the special appeal contained any prayer seeking CBI enquiry, and all petitioners challenged only the selection process alleging arbitrariness and favouritism by external agencies.
• The Division Bench based its decision on an assumption of doubt regarding the identification of external agencies, without establishing the necessary prima facie threshold required for ordering CBI investigation.
• The Court emphasized that CBI investigation should be treated as a measure of last resort, justified only when the integrity of the process has been compromised to a degree that shakes the conscience of Courts or public faith in the justice delivery system.
• The Court found that directions were issued on basis of 'doubt', 'assumption' and 'inexplicable details', but the impugned order failed to specifically point out these doubts that led to such directions.

Supreme Court's Decision

• The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and requested the Division Bench to hear the Special Appeal on merits and set aside the direction to register the case as suo motu PIL, leaving it to the Chief Justice to examine the matter according to High Court rules.
• It further clarified that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the case, and the assigned Bench should independently examine pleadings and pass appropriate orders.

Key Takeaway

Courts must exercise exceptional caution before directing CBI investigations, requiring prima facie evidence of criminal conduct rather than mere doubts or assumptions about irregularities.

ORDER VII RULE 11 CPC | REJECTION OF PLAINT TO BE DECIDED SOLELY ON PLAINT AVERMENTS: SUPREME COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Karam Singh vs. Amarjit Singh & Ors.

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• October 15, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra

Facts of the Case

• The appellant and another person filed a suit for declaration of ownership over suit land, possession, damages, and permanent injunction. The dispute arose from succession to the estate of Ronak Singh who died intestate in 1924, leaving behind his widow Kartar Kaur.
• Kartar Kaur allegedly gifted the land to one Harchand, which was challenged and ultimately set aside in 1975. After Kartar Kaur's death in 1983, the defendants set up a will dated December 15, 1976, allegedly executed by Kartar Kaur in their favour, and claimed mutation based on it.
• The plaintiffs, claiming themselves as natural heirs of Kartar Kaur through sisters of Ronak Singh, contested the will in mutation proceedings which culminated on July 20, 2017. The suit was instituted on May 31, 2019, claiming the will was null and void and an act of fraud.
• The defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC for rejection of the plaint on grounds that the suit was hopelessly barred by limitation, as the will was set up in 1983 and plaintiffs were aware of it since then.

Trial Court

Rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, holding that on plain reading of the plaint, it cannot be held that the suit is ex facie barred by limitation. The court noted that limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, and the plea of suit being barred by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC can be decided as an issue during trial.

High Court

Allowed the revision and rejected the plaint, holding that the suit was barred by time as it was instituted almost 36 years after the will was set up in 1983. The first order was passed ex parte, and a subsequent application for recall was also dismissed.

Legal Issues

• Whether the High Court was correct in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation?
• Whether the suit was barred by Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC?
• What are the principles governing rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC?

Key Legal Principles

1. Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC - Rejection of Plaint:

• While considering rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d), only the averments made in the plaint and nothing else is to be considered to find out whether the suit is barred by law. The defense is not to be considered at this stage. Whether the suit is barred by any law or not is to be determined solely on the basis of averments made in the plaint.

2. Mutation Entries and Title:

• Mutation entries do not confer title. They serve a fiscal purpose, that is, to realize tax from the person whose name is recorded in the revenue records. Moreover, mutation proceedings are summary in nature, and institution of regular suit questioning the same is not ex facie barred by law.

3. Suits for Possession Based on Title:

• Where a suit is for possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title, the limitation period is 12 years when the possession of the defendants becomes adverse to the plaintiff (Article 65 of the Limitation Act).
• When the suit is based on title for possession, once the title is established based on relevant documents and other evidence, unless the defendant proves adverse possession for the prescriptive period, the plaintiff cannot be non-suited. The burden is on the defendant to prove adverse possession for the prescriptive period.

4. Multiple Reliefs and Limitation:

• Where several reliefs are sought in a suit, if any one of the reliefs is within the period of limitation, the plaint cannot be rejected as barred by law by taking recourse to Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC.

5. Declaration with Possession:

• In a suit for declaration with a further relief, the limitation would be governed by the Article governing the suit for such further relief. A suit for declaration of title to immovable property would not be barred so long as the right to such property continues and subsists. Though limitation for filing a suit for declaration of title is three years (Article 58), for recovery of possession based upon title, the limitation is 12 years from the date the possession of the defendant becomes adverse (Article 65).

Court's Reasoning

• The High Court committed a grave error in holding that the suit was instituted after almost 36 years since the will was set up. In fact, the mutation proceedings culminated on July 20, 2017, and the suit was instituted on May 31, 2019 (within three years).
• The suit was not merely for declaration of the will being null and void but also for possession based on title. The plaint averments clearly disclosed that plaintiffs had been contesting the will in mutation proceedings which culminated in 2017.
• Neither the plaint nor any document indicated that the will was probated or its validity was tested and upheld in regular civil proceedings. Whether defendants perfected their title by adverse possession is a mixed question of law and fact that can appropriately be addressed only after evidence is led.
• The High Court failed to consider the plaint averments in their entirety and was swayed only by the fact that the will was 36 years old, overlooking that the will operates only on the death of the testator and its validity was questioned throughout in mutation proceedings.
• Regarding Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, the first suit was not tried - its plaint was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC as not being properly framed. In such circumstances, a fresh suit with appropriate relief cannot be prima facie barred by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC.

Supreme Court's Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and directed the trial court to proceed with the suit and bring proceedings to logical conclusion in accordance with law. It further clarified that observations made were only to determine whether it was a fit case for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, and should not be taken as opinion on merits of issues that may arise during trial.

Key Takeaway

A plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC if even one of the multiple reliefs sought is within the limitation period. Where possession is claimed based on title, the 12-year limitation period under Article 65 applies, and questions of adverse possession require evidence and cannot be decided at the threshold stage of plaint rejection.