{"id":10328,"date":"2010-09-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-anwar-pasha-vs-dr-erach-rustam-talati-on-6-september-2010"},"modified":"2018-01-20T10:19:12","modified_gmt":"2018-01-20T04:49:12","slug":"sri-anwar-pasha-vs-dr-erach-rustam-talati-on-6-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-anwar-pasha-vs-dr-erach-rustam-talati-on-6-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Sri Anwar Pasha vs Dr Erach Rustam Talati on 6 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Sri Anwar Pasha vs Dr Erach Rustam Talati on 6 September, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nDATED THIS THE 5*\" DAY OF SEPTEMBER, \n\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VEAi$iUGOP:fiLA':zCiOV\\i'riDvA., 1'  2\n\nWRIT PETITION NO.20265\/zozo7(\u00e9M?Ci\u00a7'C)'\"V[3,.._'~i._;A\n\nBETWEEN:\n\nSri Anwar Pasha,\n\nAged about 63 years,   \n\nS\/0. Sheik Mohiuddin,   1\n\nNo.28, Saunders Road,  '\n\nBangaiore.   '\n. - I  PETITIONER\n\n(By Sri     \n\nAND:  EEEE  h _ 'V t A' V\n\n1. Dr.?--EraCh    '\nAged'ijVn'aj,or.  \"  \n\n2. Dr.(Mrsju\"KevtayIim.'HeraFd\nGouid, aged\"maJ_o_r,.\n\nI f..Boi:h a.re:c'5'i':i!dren of Rustomji P.Talati,\n' ._Pr*ese:3_ti\u00bby'residing at No.2401,\n\n. \"N_ort'i~.\u00ab (j\u00bb!\u00abE_ve,r, Wichita,\n' Kansas \"-\"\u00a337220, U.S.A.\nRepresented by their\nPower;of attorney hofder\n\n A. ,Mr. Nariman Framroze Poonegar,\n\n_ Residing at No.18,\n \"Church Street,\n Bangalore --- 560 001.\n\n\n\n3. T.Hormus3'i, aged major,\nS\/o. not known to plaintiff\nResiding at No.1\/1, Cunningham cresent,\nBangalore -- 560 052.\n\n4. Riyazul Hassan Sheriff,\nAged 59 years,   I  '\nS\/o. M.H.Sheriff, residing at No.20, '   * _  ' i\nCockburn road, Cleveland Town,   \"\nBangalore. '\n\n(By Sri R.I.D'Sa, Adv. for C\/Ry1..t:o~.R3~)_,,\n\nThis writ petitioriieis' filed ur,ide't.,'i.~..rti.+.-lies 226 and 227\nof the Constitution of India praying-i\u00ab.toi-setf-aside the order\npassed in O.S.35.31\/19.95,\u00bb on I;A;e,No.5,.,fiiied under Order 6\nRule 17 CPC _order'_rdat\u00a5ed ..1...O6.'20'1(_i,..,\\_\/_i_dTe Annexure ~-- A by\nthe 37\"' Add,i\u00a7--._Cit'y'l Civil'3u'dge,._i.'3angalore City and to direct\nthe Court belcjwto\"all,o'Wfj1..,A.iNo.5-._fiied for amendment, as\n\nit will not ch.ange the _nature ofpthe suit and to dispose off\n\nthe matter ion:i5meFi3iS-  \"\nTiiis' petition.\u00bbAjcoh*ii.ng~o'n for preliminary hearing this\nday, the C-0,_ui*tma-deitiie,foliowing:\n\nQRDER\n\n   =.riiVAri--t, petition is directed against an order dated\n\nAi\"01';-oe..2oi,i'o,._,passed by the learned xxxvn Addl. City Civil\n\nJudge, vi\u00e9angaiore City, in O.S.No.3531\/95, whereby I.A\n\n filed by the plaintiff under Order 6\n\n ._'R.ul'e 1;? read with Section 151 of C.P.C to amend the plaint\n\nif  -was dismissed. \\\/\n \/\n\n,1\n\n   R.Es\u00abii\u00a7oii~i.o'ENTs'i V C'\n\n\n\n2. The facts ieading to the filing of the writ\n\npetition in brief are:\n\nPetitioner has filed suit on o3.o6.1995_;a*ga.i.:iatggli1'tae\u00ab_\n\nrespondents for relief of permanent injunctiieni suit  v. <\/pre>\n
based on an agreement of sale:..,4gdate–d “:4.A29.40?’;i1_’_9\u00ab8.7.’<\/p>\n
Defendants 1 & 2 have fiiedgtheir writvten stagtement <\/p>\n
November, 2000. DefendaVntt._V’d’ No.3   ‘izfiled memo
\nadopting the said  In  written
\nstatement flied by defendants  2;’*it.’ii~Vas.’been contended<\/p>\n
that, they tiadf.;ig…issuea ;nt$tiae.i ‘diatea.t:A 09.06.1988 and<\/p>\n
cancel.lied”thi\u00e9feggasii\u00e9er\ufb01eiit or-“Eadie on account of the
\npurchasers.continufedz”defa.u..E-t, despite which the plaintiff<\/p>\n
has a_cl_opted~ s_cheming_ methods. According to the written<\/p>\n
 ~._Astae.te’ine-nt,\u00bb..the sai’ci”‘a’greement of sale was cancelled and is<\/p>\n
  no  and subsisting.\n<\/p>\n
  “the issues have been struck and affidavit<\/p>\n
 ;”‘evl.d_en.ce of the plaintiff has been flied. Said argument has<\/p>\n
marked as Ex.P–1. Plaintiff filed LA No.5 on<\/p>\n
-~0–E\u00a7).12.2009 under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C seeking<\/p>\n
E\u00bb<\/p>\n
L
\nI<\/p>\n
amendment of the plaint to incorporate additional pieading<\/p>\n
and an additional prayer i.e., for specific perforrnaric_e”–of<\/p>\n
the agreement of sale and to execute the sale’ *<\/p>\n
suit property in his favour by re_ce.iv_i_ng the'”baivance’_’_isai~ell”<\/p>\n
consideration amount of Rs.8,87,S.QO;?_};i. ‘i’ The ‘r’n_a:in:u<\/p>\n
stated in the affidavit in sup’por-t. of nth-eh:applicati\u00a7on~w.i.s that, * l’<\/p>\n
vdespite clueldiiigence\ufb01 the pla_i_lnt:f_f –3guid.’not,._AAha_ve raised
\nthe proposed pleading”s..V:’and–. necessary to
\namend the plair:t_,_ as   and willing to
\nperform  ,1″O’ia_V}”‘e”Vc’:V’tions were filed on
\nbehalf .,4,\u00e9,I,ifl’,3,,f\u00a2~*-tllriiliyling the claim of the
\nplaintiff  that, the amendment sought
\nwouid aiterjthe ‘entire of the suit, the claim of<\/p>\n
specific performance is barred several years ago and the<\/p>\n
  for the suit and the proposed amendment<\/p>\n
A”are-f’_ci,early._different and the application being baseless, is<\/p>\n
false, fri__voi~ous, untenable and mischievous.<\/p>\n
if  The trial court upon consideration of the<\/p>\n
‘  rnatter has not found merit in the prayer ftgamendment of<\/p>\n
K.\n<\/p>\n
the plaint and has dismissed I.A No.5. Hence, the plaintiff<\/p>\n
has filed this writ petition to grant the relief.<\/p>\n
5. Sri S.A.Mujeeb, learned advocate  <\/p>\n
the petitioner contended that, th-e””e’xe,cutionV.”of. <\/p>\n
not in dispute; that the vendors had  <\/p>\n
the statutory clearances anld-..:p’ermissV’ions’,..,w’hic’h”th’ey did”<\/p>\n
not obtain within the’time,.—ad.r_e.ed\u00bb__andlithe time was
\nsubsequently extended”as.’per_the  made on
\nEx.P~1 for the to obtain
\npermissions”\u00abw.._t’l’a-eiiim  of the contract.
\nLearned tttt   even till today, the
\nnot obtained the statutory<\/p>\n
permi_ssions”-andclearances as agreed, to finalise the sale<\/p>\n
 ,,._Atrari.Sac;i.on.._under’theagreement and hence, there was no<\/p>\n
_’r:=ee_d’,.fo-rap’th’e..:::p:etitioner to have approached the Court<\/p>\n
earlier selesidriilg relief of specific performance of the<\/p>\n
“._,\u00bbcontract.f. Learned counsel contends that, the said material<\/p>\n
A  of the matter has not been considered by the Trial<\/p>\n
  Court. By placing strong reliance upon the decisions in the<\/p>\n
\/’<\/p>\n
,-\n<\/p>\n
cases of PANKAJA AND ANOTHER VS. YELLAPPA V(‘D_) BY<\/p>\n
L.Rs AND OTHERS (AIR 2004 sc 4102), P,ANcE;o’E.o<\/p>\n
NARAIN SRIVASTAVA vs. KM. JYOTI  <\/p>\n
ANOTHER (AIR<\/a> 1983 SC 462) and ~3A:r. ;:A;{ RAI?I’VivNiAVi\\ivC)iHAR V<\/p>\n
LAL vs. NATIONAL BUILDING :’i’—1Ai*5eRrAL”~sui\u00e9mvtf,j”(AiR._<\/p>\n
1969 SC 1267), learned  wouid co,nVtenudJth’at, the’<\/p>\n
triai court has failed to,__exerciAseVt’he j’urisdi’ct’ion. vested in it
\nto advance the cause i\ufb01hof the meritorious
\nappiication has”been,'”‘d’i’sn?{isVs:e\u00abd’vi\u00bb\u00ab.on  of wrong
\napproach to.–the’  submits that, the
\n be involved, could be
\nmade  mereiy because there is deiay
\nin fiiingii the  the reiief of specific<\/p>\n
performance, V’th.e\ufb02app:iication ought not to have been<\/p>\n
 Vrejected,?wi.thou_t taking into consideration the fact that the<\/p>\n
, ,.F\/i|_ai’nti\u00abiAff”‘ <\/p>\n
.__ir’:~i:,”‘bossession and enjoyment of the suit<\/p>\n
V V’ _ proberty-Q ‘Learned counsei submitted that, by rejecting I.A<\/p>\n
 the triai court has committed irrationaiity and<\/p>\n
   ‘i:i.ega*ii’ty. \\)<\/p>\n
-.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6. Sri R.I.D’Sa, learned advocate appearing for<\/p>\n
the respondents 1 to 3, on the other hand, submittetfthat,<\/p>\n
though the agreement is dated 29.o7.1s9\u00a737s..gri’d’lits<\/p>\n
cancellation on 09.06.1988, thet.suat.rnedgdi’o:3.o:s.i99vs V<\/p>\n
was only for permanent injunctioniafid not for\u00ab.sp:ecifi’c._<\/p>\n
performance of the contrawcti—..,,\ufb01e subnoaittfed  seven’<\/p>\n
after filing of the written stat.erner1t”‘an_d den’y*ing,.’the claim
\nof plaintiff, relief of was not sought,
\nwithin the three” year.sVV’peri1od_::atifealst  the date the
\ndefend ants ,.a_i,,\u00a2_-49  _-Zfgiedit   w.rittenVV_s_t’a:tement. Learned
\ncounsel __     of specific performance
\nis ex~f*acie  0!-lie submitted that, triai has
\ncommenced’_4 andV”‘h:eiic_e proviso of Rule 17 of Order 6<\/p>\n
C.P.,C_\u00a7f:A’is attract’ed,.\ufb01Lea:rned counsel further submitted that,<\/p>\n
 thvlefirecord it is ciear that there was no due diligence<\/p>\n
“of ‘w_’riat’so’ever”V~f..ri’a.ture on the part of the plaintiff and hence<\/p>\n
the”‘t\u00abrialv’..V:c.o’u’r’t is justified in dismissing I.A No.5. He drew<\/p>\n
.j”my,.atte’ntion to the observations in the judgment of this<\/p>\n
 e.”‘cofu’rt*”‘dated 23.09.2008 passed in MFA No.8323\/2005 and<\/p>\n
-submitted that, the injunction order granted on<\/p>\n
‘r\/<\/p>\n
s.\n<\/p>\n
03.06.1995 was vacated. Learned counsel’.–made<\/p>\n
submissions in support of the findings and conclVu’si”\u00a2dV”~vof<\/p>\n
the trial court in the impugned order.\n<\/p>\n
7. Having heard the learned :.<:4oAunsel":4.at–.'i'e~n:gth,1tI<\/p>\n
have perused the writ papers, Thel"poi'nt for'con.'s_ideriation::";<\/p>\n
is, V
\nWhether the imp;u'gned_'_'io'r'dei':.i,.$\\~'\u00bb.iVr'rationala  illegal?\n<\/p>\n
8. The g.C0urt:_.w~d_u:id granting the
\nprayer for    :$ma:d’e’ prior to the
\ncommencersnreriitllogli    is of the view that if
\nsuch  a party, who has prayed
\nfor such”a_n’  suffer irreparable loss and<\/p>\n
injury’. There.’ is no’ absolute rule that in every case where a<\/p>\n
. i\u00b0’relie’f\u00abV’ig:,,,”iUaFred because of limitation, amendment should<\/p>\n
t–not_r-be An amendment can be allowed to avoid<\/p>\n
further __l’itiga’tion and to decide the real questions in<\/p>\n
3″‘~.__V”controi)e.rsy between the parties.<\/p>\n
.\/g<\/p>\n
.v’<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
decide the same, keeping in View the iaw laid down–in the<\/p>\n
gudgment reported at AIR 1957 SC 357.\n<\/p>\n
10. In the case of PANCHDEO NARA.:..Ai,7’sR1v2isTAvA–\u00abr. <\/p>\n
(supra), the appellant\/plaintiff<\/p>\n
withdrawal of certain; amount d.epris,i:ted  <\/p>\n
defendant\/respondent in  himself as
\n‘uterine brother’. Thv~.=.\u00a5:4″‘iTrial{Courteaimlowed  application
\nbut in revision, the  amendment
\nobserving ‘dele_tion’::of ‘th:ei”wovrd:V~iiuterine’ has some
\nsignificance  of either side to a very
\ngreat uwwasivchailenged, ailowing the
\n3i3Deal:dand\u00ab’. impugned judgment, it was<\/p>\n
held that,  ifV’.the*. Court was justified in holding<\/p>\n
 ivdgeletion’ “” “of the word ‘uterine’ has some<\/p>\n
 g_’sig:ni’fican_ce\u00bb.’andjnay work in favour of either side to a very<\/p>\n
g.reat e;<teni_:ii:;yet that itself would not provide any<\/p>\n
'2__jurisdictio'n for rejecting the amendment in exercise of its<\/p>\n
A ":i.re\\g\/jisional jurisdiction. The said decision and the ratio of<\/p>\n
  ialw laid down, has no appiication to the case on hand.<\/p>\n
\/.\n<\/p>\n
ll<\/p>\n
11. The decision in the case of JAI RAI.,jR_AM<\/p>\n
MANOHAR (supra) does not also aid the <\/p>\n
petitioner. In the said case, piaintiff sued_i.n,’V_h’iisVV  ._ <\/p>\n
name on March 11, 1950. On 3,uiy:’1i8,;, \u00a3952,<\/p>\n
leave to amend the plaint togsue asA’a,p:-‘oprieto-.i=V l~l;in.du <\/p>\n
Joint Family business.  was “‘no:_’l:repl”3:?f, to the
\napplicationto amend  and the
\nTrial Court granted the.%\u00abf’i%;vl;=.,’_’.~def%ndant in a
\nsupplement writteVn~statenjei’it  that, the plaintiff
\nwas not  as his 2 brothers
\nwere ja’lS6   in any event, the
\namendm.ent’_  from July 18, 1952 and on<\/p>\n
that a_c_count,-. 1.’l’IeVVS”V.1..EitA7VVV3″”S:lV barred by limitation. The Trial<\/p>\n
 th’e”claim, but in appeal, it was held that,<\/p>\n
gtheactioani..vva:sjinstituted in the name of non–\u00bbexisting<\/p>\n
person and’ut_h\u00e9 plaintiff having failed to aver that action<\/p>\n
fjwas sought in his individual name on account of some<\/p>\n
A i~.l_bona””~\u00abfide mistake or omission, the Trial Court was not<\/p>\n
V____””.”co’mpetent to grant leave to amend the plaint and the<\/p>\n
K<\/p>\n
\/’<\/p>\n
\/, .\n<\/p>\n
12<\/span><\/p>\n
amendment of the plaintiff couid not take retrospectively<\/p>\n
and on the date of amendment, the action was barred by<\/p>\n
law iimitation. In the appeai filed their again..st_,’_\u00bbt?i’on’fble_<\/p>\n
Supreme Court has held that, a party cannot..:bei,’_irefu’sed:<\/p>\n
just relief mereiy because of some\u00e9’mis’take-\u00ab, n.egi,i”g’e_r1ce,”in\u00a5’\u00ab<\/p>\n
advertance or even infraction of th__e’\u00b0.ruies o’f,p’rocedurve.”–..L<\/p>\n
Noticing that, the name in whi’ch”‘-t.he plaintiff,  the V<\/p>\n
action was merely mis\u00a5’+d,_escript’iorij,of”‘t.ifa,e o’ri’g’i’na’lV4 plaintiff,
\nno question of limitation..’ari’sieis::’an<dFthVel'_'piaint must be
\ndeemed an h-ay"e"_j_vbee'nf'instituted in the
\nname of the  date on which it was<\/p>\n
instituted,__thellap-pea!pywasvvaliiowed. The said decision also
\nhas no applyication t"o.VAthe'""case on hand, since in the instant<\/p>\n
case,;"it,is Vnotuthle description which is sought to be<\/p>\n
liamjeridedi, but an- addition of a substantial prayer<\/p>\n
A"conyertivn'g..,,'ttawe;'suit from the permanent injunction to the<\/p>\n
one'"for ..s"peci'fic performance of the contract.<\/p>\n
if  The question is, whether the amendment of<\/p>\n
  the plaint, which was prayed after more than 14 years of<\/p>\n
't.\n<\/p>\n
— 1.\n<\/p>\n
13<\/span><\/p>\n
filing this suit and after 8 years of \ufb01ling the written
\nstatement, if the claim was already barred b_y-ij”elajw,”‘–of<\/p>\n
limitation, can be allowed?\n<\/p>\n
13. The piaintiff ciaims hismr\u00e9gyht  <\/p>\n
based on the agreement dated   <\/p>\n
The suit was instituted a’ftei*-….abodtg’?. _years__'”i.\u00bbe.,’ on * ‘<\/p>\n
03.06.1995. Defendants 1 g&_u:2.__h’a_ve “nimyeythy\u00e9i written
\nstatement during Noverntaer”:{OVOC,”‘WhEeh–.,was adopted by
\nthe defendant _No._.3 in the written<\/p>\n
statement, _ .the  have speoificaily denied the
\nciaim ofV’th’e.:’:p!_ain:t}iff  is\ufb01\u00e9tvivproperty and they also
\nstated Vthatthe. ag};een1en*t,:’was cancelied by issuing iega!<\/p>\n
noticeoni”09;’O6,E.9A8–8″and is not enforceabie. The<\/p>\n
 suit ha\\\/’i’n-gbeen based on the said agreement<\/p>\n
“in”t.he stand taken by the defendants in the<\/p>\n
vslrittein sta’it:e_n.i;ent, the piaintiff ought to have sought the<\/p>\n
ixhyrelief of’ds;.pecEfic performance of the contract, immediateiy<\/p>\n
A “:f”afte”r”~\u00abthe written statement was filed or atieast within three<\/p>\n
  years period from the date thereof. Instead, I.A.No.5 for<\/p>\n
L<\/p>\n
\/”\n<\/p>\n
g I.\n<\/p>\n
amendment was filed on 09.12.2009, though this____court<\/p>\n
while allowing MFA f\\io.8323\/2005 fiied by the deferifdan-ts<\/p>\n
has observed that, the piaintiff has failed to  .<\/p>\n
the suit schedule house was delivered to’hih%:::.’_t;.nd’e,r’_they it<\/p>\n
agreement dated 29.07.1987 and ‘thatgme piaimfrr <\/p>\n
filed the suit for specific pe’:’toi*:nance- to -‘said = L’<\/p>\n
agreement. In my opinion, thVe.t\u00e9’ivi.s absolLite!y_no_diligence
\non the part of the pV!a*initiff.’–., ‘\u00a7Th.eu”‘i”-e’asons stated in the
\naffidavit filed in 5-uvpp0:ft'”orI,A.!\\Eo.’;e5_ i:e’.b\u00a7j,idi and hence, has<\/p>\n
rightiy beennot   the tjria:\n<\/p>\n
 of ,\u00a7ett_l’e’dV\ufb02princip!es of law, in the
\nmatteryzof a!!ow.ing’.”‘o.r_’i’r’eiecti.i\u00abIig the prayer for amendment<\/p>\n
of pleading”, as._’a rule, the courts decline to aiiow<\/p>\n
C’<\/p>\n
-“‘~..,_Aamvejndr,n.erats, if ‘a”i=resh suit on the amended claim would<\/p>\n
‘Vi. itilm-itation on the date of the appiication.<\/p>\n
 15.”  reading of the written statement fiied by<\/p>\n
 J’drefenda’rits 1 & 2 would show that, the case pieaded by the<\/p>\n
 -_’petitioner\/plaintiff has been stoutly denied. It has been<\/p>\n
  -coriizended that, agreement of sale has been cancelied, the<\/p>\n
‘e<\/p>\n
\/<\/p>\n
\/.\n<\/p>\n
15<\/span><\/p>\n
piaintiff has no right over the suit property and the<\/p>\n
agreement is no ionger vaiici or subsisting. Hence~~.ii’-..st;.ch<\/p>\n
stand was taken in the written statement  ~<\/p>\n
open for the piaintiff to have kept qiiite till’.U9′.”1.2′.:2lCJ’t:39′.and: “‘ it<\/p>\n
seek relief of specific performa’nce:.f=..:’The_’<\/p>\n
limitation is certainly one gevs*nia_ne for. consicie-ratio.nVVof the –. ‘<\/p>\n
matter.\n<\/p>\n
16. In the case of’ .x_gil;Iig1iAR GOEL VS.
\nKUSUM aHuw.A.iiiA.. reported;in\u00ab,l(*i_99?)V:1i sec 457, it has
\nbeen held ass ‘i 5  V.\n<\/p>\n
    leaned Senior Counsel<\/p>\n
appearinglvfor-.Atl”ie ‘appellant, has submitted that on the<\/p>\n
dateof\ufb01linglof”the~..application for amendment a suit<\/p>\n
for sple’cii’ictpe–rfo’rrnlance of the contract was barred by<\/p>\n
~ ‘5,lin_riitation irimew of the provisions contained in Article<\/p>\n
 , ,   .theVLimitation Act, 1963 and the High Court was<\/p>\n
VinT’err(;rp”i~in..~~allowing the amendment and to convert a
\n suit declaration into a suit for speci\ufb01c performance
\n after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed<\/p>\n
for “\ufb01ling of the suit for speci\ufb01c performance. In<\/p>\n
it  lrfsupport of his submission Shri Dhavan has placed<\/p>\n
reliance on the decision of this Court in Mani La! V.<\/p>\n
X,<\/p>\n
\/.\n<\/p>\n
r’<\/p>\n
16<\/span><\/p>\n
Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltdi wherein
\nthis Court has upheld the order disallowing
\namendment of the plaint and has laid down that under
\nOrder 6 Rule 17 CPC an amendment cannot be
\nallowed in cases after the suit was barred by limitation<\/p>\n
during the pendency of the proceedings.<\/p>\n
4. In the instant case the lfligh Court. to <\/p>\n
have proceeded on the basis that \u00abgin\u00ab__the’<\/p>\n
plaintiff-respondent has made;_out_ Ala caselfor <\/p>\n
performance and nothingizew had :beenl’isought..for by = L’<\/p>\n
way of amendment. We  pperusedithe plaint. We
\nare unable to agree   viewloflvthe High
\nCourt. It is no   _the plaint the
\npla1’ntiff–responden~t\u00abhas’–.ma;3e.”v_a;”.reference to the<\/p>\n
agreement. It-is”‘havi_ng requested the appellant to
\neirecutel  But there is nothing in the<\/p>\n
plaint to Vshow ” the plaintiff–respondent was<\/p>\n
; ‘s”eeking specific performance of the contract. The suit,<\/p>\n
 ‘:’ag\u00a2,–t..framed. 1;-ya’ suit for declaration and injunction<\/p>\n
   ikwas sought to be converted into a suit for<\/p>\n
V”l…’py\u00abspe?5tfic’perfonnance by the plaintiff~respondent by<\/p>\n
 way’  amendment in the plaint in 1993 when the<\/p>\n
claim for speci\ufb01c performance had become barred by<\/p>\n
A’ ‘  limitation. The submission of Shri Dhavan is that even<\/p>\n
–*on the date of the filing of the suit, the claim for<\/p>\n
\/’.\n<\/p>\n
f<\/p>\n
I7<\/p>\n
speci\ufb01c performance was barred by limitation. _We do<\/p>\n
not propose to go into that question.\n<\/p>\n
5. in our opinion, therefore, the impugned, V’<\/p>\n
the High Court allowing the amendm_\u00a3”n’t= plaint ‘* <\/p>\n
cannot be sustained and hasvto  set”aside7?_i ”   it<\/p>\n
17. In the case of.__T.L.rV\u00a7!4f5DUKRiS’ijia;$tA_T\u00a7\\?S..:ii\u00bb<\/p>\n
LALITHA RAMCHANDRA RAO,’V’Vl’r’eborted “at..Vt(1’\u00e997j) 2 scc
\n611, it has been held   <\/p>\n
“7. Under theseHcircunista,nc’e’s,’  be held that<\/p>\n
for the purpose   material is that<\/p>\n
the to runjffrorn the date the parties
\nhave  of the contract. The
\n tolble filedllyyithin three years from the
\ndate’  under the contract. Since the
\napplic_ationlV’for’Alatnendrnent of the plaint came to be<\/p>\n
it filed ai’ter the expiry of three years. certainly it
\n‘5clj.anged the icausve of action as required to be speci\ufb01ed<\/p>\n
‘ ” \u00bb  invdgtheplaint. The suit for mandatory injunction is \ufb01led
\n yarrd”‘theiAVs’pecific performance was sought for by way of
\nit aI1V.E.3’1’:Il.’l:\u00a7t?l’AiKtIlI’I1\u20acI’lT.. The cause of action is required to be<\/p>\n
stated initially in the plaint but it was not pleaded. It<\/p>\n
b * 4_ was sought to be amended, along with an application<\/p>\n
itfor speci\ufb01c performance which, as stated earlier, was
\nrejected. Under these circumstances, even by the date<\/p>\n
of filing of the application, nan’1ely\\:–1l-1992. the suit<\/p>\n
4.<\/p>\n
19<\/span><\/p>\n
questioned before the l-ion’ble Supreme Court, it has:-___been<\/p>\n
held that, the Court would as a rule decline”.to:.f”,al:l’ow<\/p>\n
amendments, if a fresh suit on the amended.,”:claiirri: <\/p>\n
be barred by limitation on thevdate.Aofffthellfaippllilcation-.\u00e9<\/p>\n
When by an amendment, an appaireritly:$tim’e1barred”<\/p>\n
is introduced for the first tlinfieV,,_there.__w’o.uld: to bet”?<\/p>\n
some explanation and the Qla.i–nti,ff~.w’o.uld .ha’ve..toV\u00a7show his
\nbonafides, particularly by way of an
\namendment wo;;’id,_’ha\\.fe’defeating the rights
\ncreated in:_,-they   of time. The
\n of the plaintiffs would
\nnot  the plaint, more particularly
\nwhen theflaim’  become barred by time.\n<\/p>\n
Noticiynlgttthat thendefendant having set up a rival title on<\/p>\n
 V,tl”I\u20ac,xl3&S.lAS:A.O?\u20acI\u00a7.i’E\u00a5,l\u00a2 deed dated 4-10-1985, the same having<\/p>\n
ui2ot”.beenilfchalhjnped, it was held that, plaintiffs cannot be<\/p>\n
V V _ permitted. to”; introduce a time barred claim, since there<\/p>\n
 .,,.’wtaSi_.towVering delay of more than 15 years. The appeal was<\/p>\n
“t~_’aE.low’ed. The decision squarely applies to ‘the case on<\/p>\n
if  ” ”l’a’a:nd. \\;L<\/p>\n
\/”5<\/p>\n
\/\\<\/p>\n
20<\/span><\/p>\n
19. Considering the facts of the case, the in<\/p>\n
I.A No.5 and the principles laid down in <\/p>\n
noticed supra, I am of the view that, if the~’su-it:w:as:fi’led  <\/p>\n
the amended claim, it is an Ul’l(:.:l”lSi’.ll.4.i.’,(A3A.(‘1 ‘4p.osit’io-n”th-art’the<\/p>\n
said claim was clearly barred py lirriitation L=.n’der,,AVrtiple <\/p>\n
of the Limitation Act and hevncefthye   allowing
\nthe amendment   the “facts and
\ncircumstances of the  all. Hence,
\nthe trial court’isA;~jost.ifi.ed\u20ac d.i_srni”s.s’in-gr:the application for
\namendmerit,   dleslpite the plea raised in
\nthe  1 & 2, steps were
\nnot tavkenll   seek the relief of specific<\/p>\n
performance’, Vatlea-st”wit”hin 3 years period commencing<\/p>\n
 .  ,,rrorhi’ithe..dalie therefrom.\n<\/p>\n
 of the applicability of the proviso to<\/p>\n
 _ Rule””17v\u00a5:of”\u20ac5rder 6 C.P.C, and plaintiff also not showing<\/p>\n
 .V.,’due._dilioence and also in view of the bar of limitation, the<\/p>\n
-_t’ria’l’ ‘court is justified in dismissing LA No.5. There is<\/p>\n
if  -neither any procedural impropriety nor irrationality on the<\/p>\n
E<\/p>\n
4%<\/p>\n
21<\/span><\/p>\n
part of the trial court in dismissing LA No.5.___ The<\/p>\n
impugned order is sound. Keeping in view the <\/p>\n
circumstances of the case, the trial <\/p>\n
refused to exercise the discretion__v.ested _-init'{:f;*:der,4_”_Rui’eV in<\/p>\n
17 of Order 6 CPC.\n<\/p>\n
In the result, the writ pe’tition filed Aitticllle 227
\nof the Constitution is” ‘zievoi’dW_of~:’;Ifne’ri_t. anttushvvali stand
\ndismissed with cost quanti:f_iec[l”:at Rsl}’:?t\u00a7.Q,Q(i\/-, payable to<\/p>\n
res pond ents  to ~<\/p>\n
0    \u00bb ”     V<\/p>\n
Zl’\ufb01’d\u00a75<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Sri Anwar Pasha vs Dr Erach Rustam Talati on 6 September, 2010 Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 5*” DAY OF SEPTEMBER, BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VEAi$iUGOP:fiLA’:zCiOV\\i’riDvA., 1′ 2 WRIT PETITION NO.20265\/zozo7(\u00e9M?Ci\u00a7’C)'”V[3,.._’~i._;A BETWEEN: Sri Anwar Pasha, Aged about 63 years, S\/0. Sheik […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10328","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSri Anwar Pasha vs Dr Erach Rustam Talati on 6 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-anwar-pasha-vs-dr-erach-rustam-talati-on-6-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sri Anwar Pasha vs Dr Erach Rustam Talati on 6 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-anwar-pasha-vs-dr-erach-rustam-talati-on-6-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-09-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-20T04:49:12+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-anwar-pasha-vs-dr-erach-rustam-talati-on-6-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-anwar-pasha-vs-dr-erach-rustam-talati-on-6-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sri Anwar Pasha vs Dr Erach Rustam Talati on 6 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-20T04:49:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-anwar-pasha-vs-dr-erach-rustam-talati-on-6-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3116,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-anwar-pasha-vs-dr-erach-rustam-talati-on-6-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-anwar-pasha-vs-dr-erach-rustam-talati-on-6-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-anwar-pasha-vs-dr-erach-rustam-talati-on-6-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Sri Anwar Pasha vs Dr Erach Rustam Talati on 6 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-20T04:49:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-anwar-pasha-vs-dr-erach-rustam-talati-on-6-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-anwar-pasha-vs-dr-erach-rustam-talati-on-6-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-anwar-pasha-vs-dr-erach-rustam-talati-on-6-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sri Anwar Pasha vs Dr Erach Rustam Talati on 6 September, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sri Anwar Pasha vs Dr Erach Rustam Talati on 6 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-anwar-pasha-vs-dr-erach-rustam-talati-on-6-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sri Anwar Pasha vs Dr Erach Rustam Talati on 6 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-anwar-pasha-vs-dr-erach-rustam-talati-on-6-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-20T04:49:12+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-anwar-pasha-vs-dr-erach-rustam-talati-on-6-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-anwar-pasha-vs-dr-erach-rustam-talati-on-6-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sri Anwar Pasha vs Dr Erach Rustam Talati on 6 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-20T04:49:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-anwar-pasha-vs-dr-erach-rustam-talati-on-6-september-2010"},"wordCount":3116,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-anwar-pasha-vs-dr-erach-rustam-talati-on-6-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-anwar-pasha-vs-dr-erach-rustam-talati-on-6-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-anwar-pasha-vs-dr-erach-rustam-talati-on-6-september-2010","name":"Sri Anwar Pasha vs Dr Erach Rustam Talati on 6 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-20T04:49:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-anwar-pasha-vs-dr-erach-rustam-talati-on-6-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-anwar-pasha-vs-dr-erach-rustam-talati-on-6-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-anwar-pasha-vs-dr-erach-rustam-talati-on-6-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sri Anwar Pasha vs Dr Erach Rustam Talati on 6 September, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10328","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10328"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10328\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10328"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10328"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10328"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}