{"id":104279,"date":"2008-10-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-bhatia-vs-ashwani-azad-ors-on-3-october-2008"},"modified":"2015-05-24T20:09:27","modified_gmt":"2015-05-24T14:39:27","slug":"rajesh-bhatia-vs-ashwani-azad-ors-on-3-october-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-bhatia-vs-ashwani-azad-ors-on-3-october-2008","title":{"rendered":"Rajesh Bhatia vs Ashwani Azad & Ors on 3 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Rajesh Bhatia vs Ashwani Azad & Ors on 3 October, 2008<\/div>\n
CR No.5408      of 2008                                        1\n\n\n\n      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n                     CHANDIGARH\n\n\n\n\n                                     CR No.5408      of 2008\n\n                                     Date of Decision: 3.10.2008\n\n\n\nRajesh Bhatia                                          ..Petitioner\n\n                          Vs.\n\nAshwani Azad & Ors.                                     ..Respondents\n\n\n\n\nCoram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma\n\n\n\nPresent:    Mr.Rajinder Chhokar, Advocate,\n            for the petitioner.\n\n            Mr.A.P.Kansal, Advocate,\n            for respondent No.1.\n\nVinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral)\n<\/pre>\n
            The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned<\/p>\n
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad ordering recount of the votes.<\/p>\n
            Respondent No.1 filed a petition under Section 15 of the<\/p>\n
Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 (for short the Act) for declaring<\/p>\n
the election of the petitioner as Municipal Councillor from Ward No.11<\/p>\n
Municipal Corporation, Faridabad to be illegal, null and void. He further<\/p>\n
prayed that he be declared as winner\/successful candidate.<\/p>\n
            Respondent No.1 in the election petition claimed that total
\n CR No.5408     of 2008                                         2<\/span><\/p>\n
votes of Ward No.11 are 18159 but only 11181 votes were polled. The<\/p>\n
election process was over at 4 PM on 30.4.2005. It was claimed by the<\/p>\n
petitioner that even before the arrival of polling agents the ballot boxes had<\/p>\n
already been opened. It is the case of respondent No.1 that agent of<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 claimed that votes be shown to them but the counting staff<\/p>\n
did not show the same. The petitioner claimed that more than 320 votes<\/p>\n
were declared invalid. Request of the agents for being shown the invalid<\/p>\n
votes was not accepted. It is further the case of respondent No.1 that<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 was declared as winner by 700 votes but thereafter the<\/p>\n
counting staff disclosed two other boxes. However, said boxes were not<\/p>\n
shown to him and thereafter the petitioner was declared as elected.<\/p>\n
            The petitioner claimed that he wrote to the Deputy<\/p>\n
Commissioner, Faridabad for recounting of votes and the copies thereof<\/p>\n
were sent to the Chief Election Commissioner and State Election<\/p>\n
Commissioner but his request was declined.\n<\/p>\n
            In the written statement the claim of respondent No.1 was<\/p>\n
contested. After the pleadings of the parties were complete issues were<\/p>\n
framed.\n<\/p>\n
            Request of respondent No.1 was accepted and recounting was<\/p>\n
ordered on 10.8.2006. The petitioner challenged the said decision by filing<\/p>\n
Civil Revision No.5006 of 2006.\n<\/p>\n
            This court in the previous litigation by relying upon Rule 62 of<\/p>\n
the Haryana Municipal Corporation Election Rules 1994 (for short the<\/p>\n
Rules) held that once an application was not immediately made it was not
\n CR No.5408      of 2008                                         3<\/span><\/p>\n
open to the Returning Officer to recount the votes. The court held that as no<\/p>\n
evidence was led in the election petition by the parties yet, therefore, under<\/p>\n
section 17 of the Act the Election Tribunal could not have ordered the<\/p>\n
recount of votes.\n<\/p>\n
              Revision was allowed. However, it was directed that the<\/p>\n
Election Tribunal should proceed in accordance with the law and make<\/p>\n
endeavour to dispose of the same as early as possible and preferably within<\/p>\n
six months.\n<\/p>\n
              Thereafter, respondent No.1 examined himself as PW 1 and<\/p>\n
also examined one Shri Sushil Mehndiratta as PW2 and Shri Lajpat Rai as<\/p>\n
PW 3. Thereafter his evidence was closed. The petitioner appeared as RW 1<\/p>\n
and examined Shri Yogesh Goshwami as RW 2.\n<\/p>\n
              It was the case of the petitioner that no case for recounting was<\/p>\n
made out. However. Learned Civil Judge (Sr.Division) observed that<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 has taken categorical stand that votes were illegally<\/p>\n
rejected by the counting staff without showing the same to the election<\/p>\n
agents of the candidates. The allegations made by respondent No.1 were<\/p>\n
duly corroborated by RW 2 Sushil Mehndratta and Laj Pat Rai RW 3. The<\/p>\n
court also observed that after declaring respondent No.1 as elected two new<\/p>\n
boxes were opened which were not shown to respondent no.1 or his agent.<\/p>\n
The court observed that while being cross-examined the petitioner admitted<\/p>\n
in his cross-examination that he had no objection if votes are recounted. The<\/p>\n
court also observed that no prejudice was likely to be caused to the<\/p>\n
petitioner as the votes were to be recounted in court and issue No.1 would
\n CR No.5408      of 2008                                         4<\/span><\/p>\n
be decided.\n<\/p>\n
              Mr. Rajinder Chhokar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of<\/p>\n
the petitioner challenges the impugned order on the plea that admission was<\/p>\n
made by the petitioner in ignorance of his right. It was also his case that the<\/p>\n
admission made by the petitioner could be withdrawn by him at any time.<\/p>\n
              In support of this contention reliance was placed on the<\/p>\n
judgment of this court in the case of Smt.Matto and others Vs. Naino and<\/p>\n
others 2008 (1) RCR (Civil) 8, wherein this court was pleased to lay down<\/p>\n
as under:-\n<\/p>\n
              “9.   After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find<\/p>\n
              force in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
              appellant. It is settled law that admission has to be read as a<\/p>\n
              whole and once the admission is said to have been made in<\/p>\n
              ignorance of right and the same was contrary to law, the same<\/p>\n
              was not binding on the plaintiff respondents. Once the onus of<\/p>\n
              providing (proving?) issue No.2 was placed on the defendant-<\/p>\n
              respondents and they failed to discharge the same, the learned<\/p>\n
              trial court rightly held that the property was not joint Hindu<\/p>\n
              Family property and the parties were rightly held entitled to<\/p>\n
              inherit as per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              However, the judgment relied upon by the leaned counsel for<\/p>\n
the petitioner is of no help to the petitioner as till date no steps have been<\/p>\n
taken to withdraw the statement made by the petitioner before the learned<\/p>\n
Civil Judge (Senior Division).\n<\/p>\n
 CR No.5408     of 2008                                             5<\/span><\/p>\n
            Even otherwise, the order passed by the learned Civil Judge has<\/p>\n
not been passed on the basis of admission alone but on the basis of evidence<\/p>\n
led by respondent No.1 which stands duly corroborated.<\/p>\n
            Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the order<\/p>\n
of this court passed in CR No.5006 of 2006 titled Rajesh Bhatia Vs.<\/p>\n
Chairman HN Municipalities Election Tribunal Chandigarh & Ors.,<\/p>\n
decided on 22.4.2008 to contend that the impugned order was contrary to<\/p>\n
Rule 62 of the Rules.\n<\/p>\n
            However, this contention is also deserves to be rejected as this<\/p>\n
Court while disposing of CR No.5006 of 2006 clearly mentioned that the<\/p>\n
parties have to be permitted to lead their evidence and thereafter decision<\/p>\n
could be taken regarding recount.\n<\/p>\n
            Learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that           the<\/p>\n
evidence is not complete as some of the witnesses      of the respondents are<\/p>\n
yet to be examined. This plea also deserves to be rejected as the petitioner<\/p>\n
has already led evidence which stands duly corroborated showing that there<\/p>\n
was irregularity in recount. Thus, prima facie case was made out for<\/p>\n
ordering recount. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the<\/p>\n
application after four days of recount could not be entertained.<\/p>\n
            This plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner is also<\/p>\n
misconceived as that bar is for ordering recount by the Returning<\/p>\n
Officer\/Presiding Officer and not to the court where the election petition is<\/p>\n
to be adjudicated.\n<\/p>\n
            The Hon’ble Full Bench of this court in the case of Radha
\n CR No.5408     of 2008                                          6<\/span><\/p>\n
Kishan Vs. Election Tribunal-cum-Sub Judge, Hissar 1999 (3) P.L.R.1<\/p>\n
has been pleased to lay down as under:-\n<\/p>\n
            “50. Ergo we hold that recounting of votes in such an election<\/p>\n
            cannot be directed on more asking and in a routine manner.<\/p>\n
            The applicant, if makes difinite averments on verification<\/p>\n
            supported by unambiguous details, in accordance with law,<\/p>\n
            supported by documents, if any, and where the applicant makes<\/p>\n
            out a prima facie case to the satisfaction of the court, nothing<\/p>\n
            prevents the Court from ordering scrutiny and computation of<\/p>\n
            votes on recount in the case falling within restricted scope of<\/p>\n
            section 176 (4) (b) of the Act. In other words, the court would<\/p>\n
            not be justified in declining such a relief for the reason that the<\/p>\n
            applicant, irrespective of above, must lead evidence through<\/p>\n
            detailed enquiry. Such detailed enquiry is neither postulated nor<\/p>\n
            would be necessary within the purview of said provisions in<\/p>\n
            the limited cases. Afore-referred.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Thus, it would be seen that once the petitioner made out a<\/p>\n
prima facie case to the satisfaction of the court nothing could prevent the<\/p>\n
court from ordering scrutiny and recounting of votes.<\/p>\n
            It may further be noticed that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the<\/p>\n
case of Chandrika Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and others 2004 (2)<\/p>\n
RCR (Civil) 568 has been pleased to lay down that recount be ordered<\/p>\n
when it is proved on record that there is a prima facie case established and<\/p>\n
the material facts have been pleaded stating irregularity in counting of
\n CR No.5408      of 2008                                         7<\/span><\/p>\n
votes. But the court while ordering recount has to see that no roving and<\/p>\n
fishing inquiry is to be made and that secrecy of ballot papers is maintained.<\/p>\n
             In the present case, prima facie case stands established and the<\/p>\n
petitioner himself in cross-examination showed his willingness to get<\/p>\n
recount done.\n<\/p>\n
             The impugned order, therefore, does not         suffer from any<\/p>\n
illegality nor there is lack of jurisdiction which may call for interference by<\/p>\n
this court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.<\/p>\n
             No merit.\n<\/p>\n
             Dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
             Copy of the order be given dasti under the signatures of Court<\/p>\n
Secretary.\n<\/p>\n
3.10. 2008                                     (Vinod K.Sharma)\nrp                                                  Judge\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Rajesh Bhatia vs Ashwani Azad & Ors on 3 October, 2008 CR No.5408 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.5408 of 2008 Date of Decision: 3.10.2008 Rajesh Bhatia ..Petitioner Vs. Ashwani Azad & Ors. ..Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.Rajinder Chhokar, […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-104279","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRajesh Bhatia vs Ashwani Azad & Ors on 3 October, 2008 - 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\/rajesh-bhatia-vs-ashwani-azad-ors-on-3-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajesh Bhatia vs Ashwani Azad & Ors on 3 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-bhatia-vs-ashwani-azad-ors-on-3-october-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-10-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-24T14:39:27+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-bhatia-vs-ashwani-azad-ors-on-3-october-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-bhatia-vs-ashwani-azad-ors-on-3-october-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rajesh Bhatia vs Ashwani Azad & Ors on 3 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-24T14:39:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-bhatia-vs-ashwani-azad-ors-on-3-october-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1464,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-bhatia-vs-ashwani-azad-ors-on-3-october-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-bhatia-vs-ashwani-azad-ors-on-3-october-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-bhatia-vs-ashwani-azad-ors-on-3-october-2008\",\"name\":\"Rajesh Bhatia vs Ashwani Azad & Ors on 3 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-24T14:39:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-bhatia-vs-ashwani-azad-ors-on-3-october-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-bhatia-vs-ashwani-azad-ors-on-3-october-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-bhatia-vs-ashwani-azad-ors-on-3-october-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajesh Bhatia vs Ashwani Azad & Ors on 3 October, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Rajesh Bhatia vs Ashwani Azad & Ors on 3 October, 2008 - 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\/rajesh-bhatia-vs-ashwani-azad-ors-on-3-october-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajesh Bhatia vs Ashwani Azad & Ors on 3 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-bhatia-vs-ashwani-azad-ors-on-3-october-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-24T14:39:27+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-bhatia-vs-ashwani-azad-ors-on-3-october-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-bhatia-vs-ashwani-azad-ors-on-3-october-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rajesh Bhatia vs Ashwani Azad & Ors on 3 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-24T14:39:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-bhatia-vs-ashwani-azad-ors-on-3-october-2008"},"wordCount":1464,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-bhatia-vs-ashwani-azad-ors-on-3-october-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-bhatia-vs-ashwani-azad-ors-on-3-october-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-bhatia-vs-ashwani-azad-ors-on-3-october-2008","name":"Rajesh Bhatia vs Ashwani Azad & Ors on 3 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-24T14:39:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-bhatia-vs-ashwani-azad-ors-on-3-october-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-bhatia-vs-ashwani-azad-ors-on-3-october-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-bhatia-vs-ashwani-azad-ors-on-3-october-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajesh Bhatia vs Ashwani Azad & Ors on 3 October, 2008"}]},{"@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\/104279","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=104279"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/104279\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=104279"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=104279"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=104279"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}