{"id":107031,"date":"2009-09-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-malik-vs-sh-krishan-mohan-on-7-september-2009"},"modified":"2015-11-01T21:09:35","modified_gmt":"2015-11-01T15:39:35","slug":"r-s-malik-vs-sh-krishan-mohan-on-7-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-malik-vs-sh-krishan-mohan-on-7-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"R.S. Malik vs Sh. Krishan Mohan on 7 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">R.S. Malik vs Sh. Krishan Mohan on 7 September, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>C.R. No. 814 of 2007                                                            1\n\n\nIN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT\n              CHANDIGARH\n\n                               C.R. No. 814 of 2007 (O&amp;M)\n                               Date of Decision : 7.9.2009\n\nR.S. Malik\n                                                             .......... Petitioner\n                               Versus\n\n\nSh. Krishan Mohan, IAS &amp; others\n                                                            ...... Respondents\n\nCORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA\n\nPresent :    Mr. B.R.Gupta, Advocate\n             for the petitioner.\n\n             Mr. Anupam Gupta , Advocate\n             for respondent No.1.\n\n             Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate\n             for respondent No.6.\n\n             Mr. Rajeev Kawatra, Sr. DAG, Haryana.\n\n                   ****\n\nVINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL)\n<\/pre>\n<p>             The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under<\/p>\n<p>Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order dated<\/p>\n<p>9.12.2006, passed by the learned Civil Judge ( Jr. Divn.), Chandigarh, on an<\/p>\n<p>application moved under Order 7 Rule 11(b) read with Section 151 of the<\/p>\n<p>Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as amended.\n<\/p>\n<p>             The petitioner filed a suit for recovery of damages, mentioning<\/p>\n<p>therein that the value of the suit for the purposes of court fee was valued at<\/p>\n<p>Rupees one lac and court fee of Rs. 3320\/- ( Rupees three thousand three<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> C.R. No. 814 of 2007                                                        2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>hundred and twenty only ) was paid. In the prayer clause it was prayed that,<\/p>\n<p>the suit of the plaintiff be decreed with costs for a sum of Rupees one crore<\/p>\n<p>against each of defendants No. 1 to 8 severally. Interest @ 18% p.a. was<\/p>\n<p>also claimed on the decretal amount.\n<\/p>\n<p>             In the written statement filed, an objection was taken that, the<\/p>\n<p>suit was not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction.<\/p>\n<p>The issue was framed in this regard.\n<\/p>\n<p>             Defendants No. 1 to 4 thereafter moved an application for<\/p>\n<p>rejection of plaint for want of requisite court fee.<\/p>\n<p>             The learned trial Court was pleased to pass the impugned order.<\/p>\n<p>The operative part of which reads as under :-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                    &#8220;5. After hearing the ld. Counsel<br \/>\n                    for    both      the    parties          and    going<br \/>\n                    through the case file carefully,<br \/>\n                    I    am    of    the    considered         opinion<br \/>\n                    that       the      pronouncement              relied<br \/>\n                    upon       by    the     counsel          for     the<br \/>\n                    plaintiff        is    not     applicable          to<br \/>\n                    the present facts of the case for<br \/>\n                    a simple reasons that in a suit<br \/>\n                    for       renditions      of       accounts       the<br \/>\n                    exact money which is going to be<br \/>\n                    recovered        cannot        be    ascertained<br \/>\n                    but plaintiff in the present case<br \/>\n                    is        seeking       damages           in      the<br \/>\n                    categorical terms. He has claimed<br \/>\n                    rupees one crore each from each<br \/>\n                    of the defendants so he knows the<br \/>\n                    exact      amount      which        he    wants    to<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> C.R. No. 814 of 2007                                                        3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>                     claim and there is scope for the<br \/>\n                     court to go into the valuation as<br \/>\n                     plaintiff                 has               himself<br \/>\n                     categorically              explained            the<br \/>\n                     amount which he want to recover.<br \/>\n                     Under such circumstances there is<br \/>\n                     no ambiguity in the mind of this<br \/>\n                     court that the plaintiff is bound<br \/>\n                     to affix ad valorem court fee on<br \/>\n                     Rs. 8,00,00,000\/- ( Rupees Eight<br \/>\n                     Crores)      and     he    is     directed       to<br \/>\n                     affix the same on Eight Crores of<br \/>\n                     Rupees       within        30     days.        The<br \/>\n                     pronouncement of our Hon&#8217;ble High<br \/>\n                     Court is fully applicable to the<br \/>\n                     present      facts        of    the    case.     To<br \/>\n                     come    up   on    9.1.2007           for   filing<br \/>\n                     court fee.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>                Mr. B.R. Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the<\/p>\n<p>petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the plea that, in the written<\/p>\n<p>statement objection regarding non-payment of proper court fee was raised<\/p>\n<p>and issue was framed, therefore, there was no occasion for the defendant \/<\/p>\n<p>respondents now to file a petition under Order 7 Rule 11(b) of the Code of<\/p>\n<p>Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint, especially when the Reader of the<\/p>\n<p>Court found the suit to be properly valued for the purposes of court fee and<\/p>\n<p>jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n<p>                It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n<p>petitioner that, the petitioner had undertaken to pay the court fee on the<\/p>\n<p>decretal amount when the final decree is passed, therefore, the impugned<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> C.R. No. 814 of 2007                                                         4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>order cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n<p>            In support of the contention the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n<p>petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court in<\/p>\n<p>the case of M\/s Commercial Aviation &amp; Travel Company and others Vs.<\/p>\n<p>Mrs. Vimla Panna Lal 1988(2) PLR 288, wherein the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme<\/p>\n<p>Court has been pleased to lay down as under :-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                  &#8220;Held further, that our attention<br \/>\n                  has been drawn to paragraph 33 of<br \/>\n                  the        plaint    where          it    has     been<br \/>\n                  stated by the plaintiff that on<br \/>\n                  rendition            of        accounts,             the<br \/>\n                  plaintiff                 estimates               that<br \/>\n                  approximately             a    sum       of    Rs.    25<br \/>\n                  laks to 30 laks would become due<br \/>\n                  to her share. It is submitted on<br \/>\n                  behalf of the appellant that in<br \/>\n                  view of such a statement in the<br \/>\n                  plaint,        the        respondent            should<br \/>\n                  have        valued         the       relief          for<br \/>\n                  rendition of accounts at Rs. 25<br \/>\n                  lakhs.       We     are       unable      to    accept<br \/>\n                  the        contention.             The    statement<br \/>\n                  does         not,        in        our        opinion,<br \/>\n                  constitute any objective standard<br \/>\n                  of     valuation              or     a        positive<br \/>\n                  material          from     which         it    can    be<br \/>\n                  said with any amount of certainty<br \/>\n                  that the valuation of the relief<br \/>\n                  for accounts should be at the sum<br \/>\n                  of Rs. 25 lakhs. The respondent<br \/>\n                  was not required to make such a<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> C.R. No. 814 of 2007                                                        5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>                  statement       in     the    plaint.          It   is<br \/>\n                  the     wishful           thinking        of        the<br \/>\n                  respondent that on account being<br \/>\n                  taken, she would be entitled to<br \/>\n                  such       a         huge         amount.           The<br \/>\n                  respondent          has     not    give       in    the<br \/>\n                  plaint any material in support of<br \/>\n                  the estimate of Rs. 25 lakhs to<br \/>\n                  30    lakhs     to     her    share.          As    has<br \/>\n                  been stated already, this is no<br \/>\n                  material        at    all     on     which          any<br \/>\n                  reliance       can     be    placed       for       the<br \/>\n                  purpose        of      valuation          of        the<br \/>\n                  relief.        We    have     considered            the<br \/>\n                  facts     and       circumstances         of        the<br \/>\n                  case and also the legal position<br \/>\n                  and in our view the valuation of<br \/>\n                  the relief for the rendition of<br \/>\n                  accounts under section (iv)(f) of<br \/>\n                  the    Court        Fees     Act    is    neither<br \/>\n                  unreasonable                nor          it          is<br \/>\n                  demonstratively arbitrary.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>            The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on<\/p>\n<p>the judgments of this Court in the cases of Hem Raj Vs. Harchet Singh &amp;<\/p>\n<p>others 1993 Civil Court Cases 48 (P&amp;H), State of Punjab Vs. Jagdip<\/p>\n<p>Singh 2005(1) ISJ (Banking) 282 and Subhash Chander Goel Vs.<\/p>\n<p>Harvind Sagar AIR 2003 Punjab and Haryana 248.\n<\/p>\n<p>            The revision is contested by the respondent by placing reliance<\/p>\n<p>on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ranjit Kaur and others Vs.<\/p>\n<p>Punjab State Electricity Board and another 2007(1) R.C.R. ( Civil) 686.<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> C.R. No. 814 of 2007                                                            6<\/span><\/p>\n<p>              On consideration of the matter, I find no force in this revision.<\/p>\n<p>The Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court in the case of M\/s Commercial Aviation &amp;<\/p>\n<p>Travel Company and others Vs. Mrs. Vimla Panna Lal (supra) while<\/p>\n<p>dealing with a suit for rendition of account, formed a view that the valuation<\/p>\n<p>by the plaintiff could not be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable, as specific<\/p>\n<p>amount to which the plaintiff would be entitled to could not be determined<\/p>\n<p>at the time of filing of the suit. In the case in hand, the plaintiff \/ petitioner<\/p>\n<p>claimed specific amount, therefore, the judgment of the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme<\/p>\n<p>Court will not apply to the facts of the case. The other judgment relied upon<\/p>\n<p>by the learned counsel for the petitioner was considered by this Court in the<\/p>\n<p>case of Ranjit Kaur and others Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and<\/p>\n<p>another ( supra), this Court was pleased to lay down that when specific<\/p>\n<p>amount is claimed, the plaintiff is required to pay ad valorem court fee. The<\/p>\n<p>judgment passed by this Court reads as under :-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                    &#8220;13. The observations in Hem Raj&#8217;s<br \/>\n                    case ( supra) that there is no<br \/>\n                    distinction           in      a      suit       for<br \/>\n                    rendition of accounts and a suit<br \/>\n                    for    damages       is     contrary      to    the<br \/>\n                    provisions           of       Section          7(i)<br \/>\n                    contemplating           ad    valorem        court<br \/>\n                    fees in a suit for money and the<br \/>\n                    amount      at    which      the     relief       is<br \/>\n                    sought in a suit for accounts in<br \/>\n                    terms of Section 7(iv)(f) of the<br \/>\n                    Act.     Since       the     statute        itself<br \/>\n                    deals          with          these           suits<br \/>\n                    differently,          the    basis      of     such<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> C.R. No. 814 of 2007                                                       7<\/span><\/p>\n<p>                 judgment is, in fact, contrary to<br \/>\n                 the statutory provisions.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<pre>                 14. In       the     present        case,        the\n                 plaintiffs           have          specifically\n                 claimed Rs. 20 lacs as damages.\n                 Though       exact    break        up      of    the\n                 entire        claim       has        not        been\n<\/pre>\n<blockquote><p>                 mentioned, yet the basis of claim<br \/>\n                 of such compensation is available<br \/>\n                 in    the    plaint    which        is     evident<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                 from    reading       para      Nos.     5      to    9<\/span><br \/>\n                 thereof.              Therefore,                 the<br \/>\n                 plaintiffs have claimed specific<br \/>\n                 amount.       Whether        the     plaintiffs<br \/>\n                 succeed in claiming such amount<br \/>\n                 is not the question which can be<br \/>\n                 gone into at the time of deciding<br \/>\n                 the question whether proper court<br \/>\n                 fees        has    been       affixed.           The<br \/>\n                 plaintiff may or may not succeed<br \/>\n                 in getting the amount claimed but<br \/>\n                 it is for him to establish his<br \/>\n                 loss        and      affix         court        fees<br \/>\n                 thereon. It is well settled that<br \/>\n                 the     court        fees       has        to        be<br \/>\n                 determined on the basis of entire<br \/>\n                 reading of the plaint. Therefore,<br \/>\n                 in terms of Section 7(i) of the<br \/>\n                 Act, the plaintiffs are liable to<br \/>\n                 pay ad valorem court fees on the<br \/>\n                 amount of Rs. 20 lacs.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>           The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that,<\/p>\n<p>because the issue has been framed or that the Reader has found the Court<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> C.R. No. 814 of 2007                                                        8<\/span><\/p>\n<p>fee to be correct can be of no consequence, as it is for the Court to<\/p>\n<p>determine the court fee payable on the pleadings of the parties and the note<\/p>\n<p>of the Reader is of no consequence. The plea that, plaintiff would pay Court<\/p>\n<p>fee on a subsequent date can also be of no help to the petitioner, as the<\/p>\n<p>Court in view of the pleadings has held that ad valorem Court fee is payable<\/p>\n<p>and opportunity has been granted to the petitioner to make good the Court<\/p>\n<p>fee. There is no merit in the revision, which is ordered to be dismissed.<\/p>\n<p>             The petitioner is now granted one month&#8217;s time, to make good<\/p>\n<p>the court fee, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.<\/p>\n<pre>7.9.2009                                           ( VINOD K. SHARMA )\n  'sp'                                                  JUDGE\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Punjab-Haryana High Court R.S. Malik vs Sh. Krishan Mohan on 7 September, 2009 C.R. No. 814 of 2007 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 814 of 2007 (O&amp;M) Date of Decision : 7.9.2009 R.S. Malik &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;. Petitioner Versus Sh. Krishan Mohan, IAS &amp; others &#8230;&#8230; Respondents CORAM : HON&#8217;BLE [&hellip;]<\/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-107031","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>R.S. Malik vs Sh. Krishan Mohan on 7 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/r-s-malik-vs-sh-krishan-mohan-on-7-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R.S. Malik vs Sh. Krishan Mohan on 7 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-malik-vs-sh-krishan-mohan-on-7-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-09-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-01T15:39:35+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\\\/r-s-malik-vs-sh-krishan-mohan-on-7-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-s-malik-vs-sh-krishan-mohan-on-7-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"R.S. Malik vs Sh. Krishan Mohan on 7 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-01T15:39:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-s-malik-vs-sh-krishan-mohan-on-7-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1532,\"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\\\/r-s-malik-vs-sh-krishan-mohan-on-7-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-s-malik-vs-sh-krishan-mohan-on-7-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-s-malik-vs-sh-krishan-mohan-on-7-september-2009\",\"name\":\"R.S. Malik vs Sh. Krishan Mohan on 7 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-01T15:39:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-s-malik-vs-sh-krishan-mohan-on-7-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-s-malik-vs-sh-krishan-mohan-on-7-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-s-malik-vs-sh-krishan-mohan-on-7-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"R.S. Malik vs Sh. Krishan Mohan on 7 September, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"R.S. Malik vs Sh. Krishan Mohan on 7 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/r-s-malik-vs-sh-krishan-mohan-on-7-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"R.S. Malik vs Sh. Krishan Mohan on 7 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-malik-vs-sh-krishan-mohan-on-7-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-01T15:39:35+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\/r-s-malik-vs-sh-krishan-mohan-on-7-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-malik-vs-sh-krishan-mohan-on-7-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"R.S. Malik vs Sh. Krishan Mohan on 7 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-01T15:39:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-malik-vs-sh-krishan-mohan-on-7-september-2009"},"wordCount":1532,"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\/r-s-malik-vs-sh-krishan-mohan-on-7-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-malik-vs-sh-krishan-mohan-on-7-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-malik-vs-sh-krishan-mohan-on-7-september-2009","name":"R.S. Malik vs Sh. Krishan Mohan on 7 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-01T15:39:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-malik-vs-sh-krishan-mohan-on-7-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-malik-vs-sh-krishan-mohan-on-7-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-malik-vs-sh-krishan-mohan-on-7-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"R.S. Malik vs Sh. Krishan Mohan on 7 September, 2009"}]},{"@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\/107031","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=107031"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107031\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=107031"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=107031"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=107031"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}