{"id":123032,"date":"2011-10-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-10-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-rajinder-ors-vs-harsh-vohra-ors-on-18-october-2011"},"modified":"2017-11-02T01:08:47","modified_gmt":"2017-11-01T19:38:47","slug":"sh-rajinder-ors-vs-harsh-vohra-ors-on-18-october-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-rajinder-ors-vs-harsh-vohra-ors-on-18-october-2011","title":{"rendered":"Sh.Rajinder & Ors. vs Harsh Vohra & Ors. on 18 October, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Sh.Rajinder & Ors. vs Harsh Vohra & Ors. on 18 October, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Sanjay Kishan Kaul<\/div>\n
*          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n\n\n%                                               Date of decision : 18.10.2011\n\n\n\n                            WP(C) No.7547\/2011\n\n\n\nSH.RAJINDER & ORS.                       ...      ...       ...         PETITIONERS\n\n\n                        Through : Mr.Lekh Raj Rehalia, Advocate\n\n\n                                   -VERSUS-\n\n\nHARSH VOHRA & ORS.                                              ... RESPONDENTS\n\n                        Through : Nemo.\n\n\nCORAM :\n\nHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL\nHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER\n\n1.      Whether the Reporters of local papers                           NO\n        may be allowed to see the judgment?\n\n2.      To be referred to Reporter or not?                              NO\n\n3.      Whether the judgment should be                                  NO\n        reported in the Digest?\n\n\n\n_________________________________________________________________________________________\nWPC No.7547\/2011                                                             Page 1 of 13\n SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. (ORAL)\n<\/pre>\n
CM No.17076\/2011<\/p>\n
    Allowed subject to just exceptions.\n<\/p>\n
+ WP (C) No.7547\/2011<\/p>\n
       1. The petitioners, owners of land in question, executed a<\/p>\n
           sale deed dated 07.10.1996 in respect of the land in<\/p>\n
           question and mutation was also carried out in the<\/p>\n
           revenue records in favour of the respondents. The<\/p>\n
           petitioners, however, filed a suit alleging that they<\/p>\n
           have received only part payment under the sale deed<\/p>\n
           and balance consideration was not paid and sought<\/p>\n
           cancellation of documents of title and for them to be<\/p>\n
           declared       null    and     void.    Arising      from     those      suit<\/p>\n
           proceedings, a Civil Revision Petition No.183\/2007 and<\/p>\n
           FAO No.25\/2009 were filed, which were decided by the<\/p>\n
           learned single Judge of this Court on 01.12.2009. The<\/p>\n
           learned single Judge noticed that it is the case of the<\/p>\n
           petitioners that they have agreed to sell the land for<\/p>\n
           higher consideration and understood that they were<\/p>\n
           only signing documents of mortgage and not the sale
\n_________________________________________________________________________________________
\nWPC No.7547\/2011                                                             Page 2 of 13<\/span>
\n            deed when they executed the documents. There were,<\/p>\n
           in fact, four suits which arose out of the transaction in<\/p>\n
           question as there were four sale deeds. The petitioners<\/p>\n
           also stated in the plaint that they had filed appeal<\/p>\n
           against the mutation of the land in the name of the<\/p>\n
           respondents which was dismissed, the second appeal<\/p>\n
           was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner and it is<\/p>\n
           thereafter that the petitioners instituted the suit for<\/p>\n
           declaration and injunction. The issues were framed on<\/p>\n
           18.05.2006 and all the suits were directed to be tried<\/p>\n
           together.\n<\/p>\n
       2. It is at the aforesaid stage that the petitioners instead<\/p>\n
           of filing affidavits by way of examination-in-chief of<\/p>\n
           their witnesses filed an application under Order 14 Rule<\/p>\n
           5 and Order 11 Rule 16 of the CPC. An application was<\/p>\n
           also filed subsequently under Section 340 of Cr.P.C.,<\/p>\n
           which was dismissed on 05.07.2007. It is against this<\/p>\n
           order that a Criminal Appeal No.460\/2007 was filed<\/p>\n
           which       was       subsequently          converted          into     FAO<\/p>\n
           No.25\/2009, which was decided by the learned single<\/p>\n
           Judge. The petitioners also made a grievance that no<\/p>\n
_________________________________________________________________________________________
\nWPC No.7547\/2011                                                             Page 3 of 13<\/span>
\n            orders were passed on their applications filed under<\/p>\n
           Order 14 Rule 5 and Order 10 of CPC.\n<\/p>\n
       3. The learned single Judge has found that the orders of<\/p>\n
           the Trial Court were misquoted and the revision<\/p>\n
           petition was not only signed by the petitioners, but by<\/p>\n
           their counsels. Even though certified copies of orders<\/p>\n
           were filed along with the revision petition, court found<\/p>\n
           that the orders reproduced in the body of the pleadings<\/p>\n
           filed had been misquoted; an act which was roundedly<\/p>\n
           deplored. It also found that after dismissing the<\/p>\n
           application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C., the Trial Court<\/p>\n
           had listed the matter for hearing of the applications<\/p>\n
           under Order 14 Rule 5 and Order 10 of CPC. A finding<\/p>\n
           has been arrived at by the learned single Judge that not<\/p>\n
           only was the revision petition misconceived, but it was<\/p>\n
           an attempt to browbeat the trial court and the suit<\/p>\n
           proceedings have been unnecessarily delayed.                             The<\/p>\n
           FAO     No.25\/2009          was     qua     the     dismissal       of   the<\/p>\n
           application of the petitioner under Section 340 of<\/p>\n
           Cr.P.C., which has also been dealt with by the learned<\/p>\n
           single Judge on merits, finding no infirmity in the same.<\/p>\n
           The operative portion is as under:\n<\/p>\n
_________________________________________________________________________________________
\nWPC No.7547\/2011                                                             Page 4 of 13<\/span>
\n                   “From the aforesaid, it will be seen that
\n                  the petitioners having only by misquoting
\n                  the orders filed the frivolous proceedings
\n                  before this Court but during hearing also
\n                  just read judgments herein above without
\n                  reference to the facts. I am, in the
\n                  circumstances, constrained to dismiss
\n                  these    proceedings     with    costs  of
\n                  Rs.10,000\/- on the petitioners.”\n<\/p>\n
      4. The learned single Judge did not lay the matter to rest<\/p>\n
          at    that      stage     since     in    exercise       of    supervisory<\/p>\n
          jurisdiction, the learned single Judge found that the very<\/p>\n
          maintainability of the suits was in question and thus<\/p>\n
          directed a preliminary issue to be framed in that behalf.<\/p>\n
          The aforesaid order attained finality as it was not<\/p>\n
          challenged further and was taken into consideration by<\/p>\n
          the Trial Court in passing the order dated 20.11.2010.<\/p>\n
          The plaint was rejected holding that the only remedy<\/p>\n
          available to the petitioners as plaintiffs was to seek<\/p>\n
          recovery of the balance consideration of the suit<\/p>\n
          amount, if any, and not for cancellation of the sale<\/p>\n
          deed.\n<\/p>\n
      5. The petitioners aggrieved by this order filed RFA<\/p>\n
          No.104\/2011 before this Court.                     The learned single<\/p>\n
          Judge      of    this     Court      dismissed         the     appeal       as<\/p>\n
          misconceived by the order dated 17.02.2011.                               The
\n_________________________________________________________________________________________
\nWPC No.7547\/2011                                                             Page 5 of 13<\/span>
\n           learned single Judge found that the suit did not lie in<\/p>\n
          view of the provisions of Section 55 (4) of the Transfer<\/p>\n
          of Property Act, 1882. There is also a finding recorded<\/p>\n
          that the suit was barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC as<\/p>\n
          earlier suits had been withdrawn without liberty to file a<\/p>\n
          fresh suit. The petitioners aggrieved by that order filed<\/p>\n
          a SLP bearing No.15374\/2011, which was dismissed in<\/p>\n
          limine, on 06.07.2011.\n<\/p>\n
      6. It is after these rounds of litigation, that the present writ<\/p>\n
          petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India<\/p>\n
          has been filed praying for the following reliefs:<\/p>\n
               ” a) issue an appropriate writ, order or
\n                 direction in the nature of Mandamus by
\n                 setting aside the judgment and order dated
\n                 1.12.2009 passed by the Hon’ble Mr.Justice
\n                 Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, the Learned single
\n                 Judge of this Hon’ble Court in Civil Revision
\n                 Petition No.183\/2007 and FAO No.25\/2009
\n                 which is beyond jurisdiction and in violation
\n                 of Order 20 Rule 1 CPC read with Section 35
\n                 of CPC;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               b) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction
\n                  in the nature of Mandamus by setting aside
\n                  the judgment and order passed by the
\n                  Additional District Judge, Delhi dated
\n                  20.11.2010 in Civil Suit Nos.102\/08\/1999 to
\n                  105\/08\/1999      and    the    records     be
\n                  summoned.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               c) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction
\n                  in the nature of Mandamus by setting aside
\n_________________________________________________________________________________________
\nWPC No.7547\/2011                                                             Page 6 of 13<\/span>
\n                    the judgment and order dated 17.2.2011
\n                   passed by the Hon’ble Mr.Justice Valmiki
\n                   J.Mehta, the learned single Judge of this
\n                   Hon’ble Court in RFA No.104\/2011 which is
\n                   also without jurisdiction and mainly hinges
\n                   on the findings given by the Hon’ble
\n                   Mr.Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, the learned
\n                   Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court vide order
\n                   dated     1.12.2009     passed       in    CRP
\n                   No.183\/2007 and FAO No.25 of 2009 which
\n                   in fact is the complete violation of
\n                   procedural provisions of the CPC is
\n                   apparent on the face of the record when all
\n                   issues arising on the basis of the pleadings
\n                   were framed by the Additional District Judge
\n                   Delhi on 18.05.2006 and the cases were
\n                   listed on 31.8.2006 for plaintiff’s evidence;<\/p>\n
               d) the aforesaid three orders may kindly be set
\n                  aside and the matter be remanded back to
\n                  the Court of learned Additional District
\n                  Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi when the aforesaid
\n                  Civil Suit No.102\/08\/1999 to 105\/08\/1999
\n                  for fresh disposal in accordance with the
\n                  law;\n<\/p>\n
               e) then notice issued by Hon’ble Mr.Justice
\n                  Shiv Narain Dhingra learned Single Judge of
\n                  this Hon’ble Court to the respondents in
\n                  FAO No.25\/2009 be recalled and the
\n                  respondents be proceeded under Section
\n                  340, 195 Cr.P.C. in view of the order dated
\n                  19.9.2006 passed by Additional District
\n                  Judge, Delhi in M\/44\/2006;\n<\/p>\n
               f) and pass such other or further order\/orders
\n                  as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
\n                  proper in the facts and circumstances of the
\n                  case and in the interest of justice.”\n<\/p>\n
_________________________________________________________________________________________
\nWPC No.7547\/2011                                                             Page 7 of 13<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
        7. The       Registry       raised       an      objection       about       the<\/p>\n
           maintainability of such a writ petition, but the learned<\/p>\n
           counsel for the petitioners insisted that the matter may<\/p>\n
           be placed before the court for hearing subject to the<\/p>\n
           office objection. The writ petition has accordingly been<\/p>\n
           placed before us.\n<\/p>\n
       8. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at<\/p>\n
           length.\n<\/p>\n
       9. It is the say of the learned counsel for the petitioners<\/p>\n
           that the petitioners have not received justice at the<\/p>\n
           hands of various forums where proceedings have gone<\/p>\n
           on. It is his say that the learned single Judge fell into<\/p>\n
           an error while passing the order dated 01.12.2009 and<\/p>\n
           the directions passed there could not have been taken<\/p>\n
           into account by the Trial Court while passing the order<\/p>\n
           dated 20.11.2010. Learned counsel further contends<\/p>\n
           that the dismissal of the special leave petition does not<\/p>\n
           give finality to the matter as the dismissal was in<\/p>\n
           limine. Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously<\/p>\n
           contends that this court in exercise of power of under<\/p>\n
           Article 226 of the Constitution of India has every right<\/p>\n
           to look into the matter as the rights of the petitioners
\n_________________________________________________________________________________________
\nWPC No.7547\/2011                                                             Page 8 of 13<\/span>
\n            under Article 300A of the Constitution of India have<\/p>\n
           been violated as the petitioners have been deprived of<\/p>\n
           their property without following the legal process.<\/p>\n
       10.      Learned counsel has relied upon the Indian Oil<\/p>\n
           Corporation Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Ors.; AIR 1986<\/p>\n
           SC 1780 to contend that the dismissal of a special<\/p>\n
           leave petition by Supreme Court by a non-speaking<\/p>\n
           order is no bar to the trial of the same issues in High<\/p>\n
           Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It<\/p>\n
           may be noticed that the matter in controversy was a<\/p>\n
           service dispute.\n<\/p>\n
       11.Learned counsel for the petitioners next referred to<\/p>\n
           State of UP through Secretary v. Atulji Mishra & Ors.;<\/p>\n
           (2003) 10 SCC 210 to contend that the High Court must<\/p>\n
           first issue notice to the respondents, call upon their<\/p>\n
           reply and then pass an order under Article 226 of the<\/p>\n
           Constitution of India. We may note that this case again<\/p>\n
           pertained to the issue of parity in employment and<\/p>\n
           equal pay for equal work where Supreme Court found<\/p>\n
           that the records ought to have been called and a<\/p>\n
           reasoned order should have been passed.                            Learned<\/p>\n
           counsel for the petitioners referred to the Gurudevdatta
\n_________________________________________________________________________________________
\nWPC No.7547\/2011                                                             Page 9 of 13<\/span>
\n            Vksss Maryadit and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and<\/p>\n
           Ors.<\/a>; (2001) 4 SCC 534, State of Himachal Pradesh v.<\/p>\n
           Dhanwant Singh<\/a>; JT 2004 (2) SC 367 and A.V.Papayya<\/p>\n
           Sastry and Ors.v. Govt. of A.P.& Ors. (2007) 4 SCC 221<\/p>\n
           to contend that that the statutory provisions cannot<\/p>\n
           take away the constitutional rights and that where a<\/p>\n
           fraud takes place, it vitiates all judicial proceedings.<\/p>\n
    12.      We have given our thought to the matter and<\/p>\n
           considered it appropriate to pen down a detailed order,<\/p>\n
           setting the facts in controversy.\n<\/p>\n
    13. We find that the matter really does not pertain to<\/p>\n
           deprivation        of    any        constitutional       rights     of     the<\/p>\n
           petitioners qua the right of property in view of the<\/p>\n
           petitioners voluntarily entering into a transaction for<\/p>\n
           sale of the property.               It is of course the say of the<\/p>\n
           petitioners       that     they      have     executed        what        were<\/p>\n
           purportedly mortgage papers.                      The fact, however,<\/p>\n
           remains that the sale deed was duly registered and<\/p>\n
           mutation        carried       out    and    all    endevours         of    the<\/p>\n
           petitioners       to    get    the     mutation       set     aside       were<\/p>\n
           unsuccessful.           The     petitioners        kept      on     moving<\/p>\n
           applications including one under Section 340 Cr.P.C.
\n_________________________________________________________________________________________
\nWPC No.7547\/2011                                                             Page 10 of 13<\/span>
\n            which formed subject matter of adjudication of the<\/p>\n
           learned single Judge vide order dated 01.12.2009.<\/p>\n
           Learned single Judge deplored the mode and manner of<\/p>\n
           conduct of proceedings on behalf of the petitioners<\/p>\n
           especially the factum of incorrectly quoting the orders<\/p>\n
           in the petition to give an impression as if the trial court<\/p>\n
           was delaying the proceedings qua certain applications<\/p>\n
           while records showed that it was the petitioners who<\/p>\n
           were pressing the application under Section 340 of<\/p>\n
           Cr.P.C. first. The dismissal of that application has been<\/p>\n
           upheld as no perjury was found nor any inconsistencies<\/p>\n
           in the statements of the defendants. This order has<\/p>\n
           become final and the same is stated not to have been<\/p>\n
           assailed further. It is by this very order where the court<\/p>\n
           exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of<\/p>\n
           the Constitution of India directed the Trial Court to<\/p>\n
           examine the legality and validity of the claim as framed<\/p>\n
           in the plaint in the form of a preliminary issue.                        This<\/p>\n
           preliminary        issue     has     been      decided       against      the<\/p>\n
           petitioners vide the order dated 20.11.2010 by the Trial<\/p>\n
           Court which has received the imprimatur of this Court<\/p>\n
           by dismissal of the RFA No.104\/2011 vide order dated
\n_________________________________________________________________________________________
\nWPC No.7547\/2011                                                             Page 11 of 13<\/span>
\n            17.02.2011. The special leave petition has also been<\/p>\n
           dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
    14. In our considered view, this puts the controversy to rest<\/p>\n
           insofar as the claim of the petitioners over the<\/p>\n
           cancellation of documents is concerned. We may notice<\/p>\n
           that the Trial Court had left it to the petitioners, if so<\/p>\n
           advised, to file legal proceedings for recovery of the<\/p>\n
           balance consideration of the sale deed as pleaded by<\/p>\n
           them since that was not the relief claimed in the suit.<\/p>\n
    15. We must strongly deprecate the practice of repeated<\/p>\n
           litigation on the same cause of action, wasting the time<\/p>\n
           of the court. The lis, as agitated by the petitioners, has<\/p>\n
           attained finality.         The Registry also pointed out that<\/p>\n
           such a writ petition would not be maintainable as the<\/p>\n
           order passed in RFA No.104\/2011 by a learned single<\/p>\n
           Judge of this Court is not to be set aside in the writ<\/p>\n
           petition by this Court. Not only that, the orders passed<\/p>\n
           in Civil Revision Petition                  No.183\/2007 and FAO<\/p>\n
           No.25\/2009 are also not to be set aside by this Court<\/p>\n
           under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and that<\/p>\n
           too, after a period of 2 years. The petitioners seek to<\/p>\n
           continue litigation under one pretext or the other and
\n_________________________________________________________________________________________
\nWPC No.7547\/2011                                                             Page 12 of 13<\/span>
\n            courts must come down with heavy hand on such<\/p>\n
           litigation.\n<\/p>\n
    15. We thus dismiss the writ petition with exemplary costs<\/p>\n
           of Rs.25,000\/- to be deposited with the Delhi High<\/p>\n
           Court Legal Services Committee within a period of two<\/p>\n
           weeks.\n<\/p>\n
CM No.17075\/2011<\/p>\n
           In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, no further<\/p>\n
           directions are called for on this application.<\/p>\n
           The application stands disposed of.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                  SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
OCTOBER 18, 2011                                        RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.\ndm\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
_________________________________________________________________________________________
\nWPC No.7547\/2011                                                             Page 13 of 13<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Sh.Rajinder & Ors. vs Harsh Vohra & Ors. on 18 October, 2011 Author: Sanjay Kishan Kaul * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision : 18.10.2011 WP(C) No.7547\/2011 SH.RAJINDER & ORS. … … … PETITIONERS Through : Mr.Lekh Raj Rehalia, Advocate -VERSUS- HARSH VOHRA & ORS. […]<\/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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-123032","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSh.Rajinder & Ors. vs Harsh Vohra & Ors. on 18 October, 2011 - 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\/sh-rajinder-ors-vs-harsh-vohra-ors-on-18-october-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sh.Rajinder & Ors. vs Harsh Vohra & Ors. on 18 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-rajinder-ors-vs-harsh-vohra-ors-on-18-october-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-10-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-01T19:38:47+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sh-rajinder-ors-vs-harsh-vohra-ors-on-18-october-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sh-rajinder-ors-vs-harsh-vohra-ors-on-18-october-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sh.Rajinder & Ors. vs Harsh Vohra & Ors. on 18 October, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-01T19:38:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sh-rajinder-ors-vs-harsh-vohra-ors-on-18-october-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2265,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sh-rajinder-ors-vs-harsh-vohra-ors-on-18-october-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sh-rajinder-ors-vs-harsh-vohra-ors-on-18-october-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sh-rajinder-ors-vs-harsh-vohra-ors-on-18-october-2011\",\"name\":\"Sh.Rajinder & Ors. vs Harsh Vohra & Ors. on 18 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-01T19:38:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sh-rajinder-ors-vs-harsh-vohra-ors-on-18-october-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sh-rajinder-ors-vs-harsh-vohra-ors-on-18-october-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sh-rajinder-ors-vs-harsh-vohra-ors-on-18-october-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sh.Rajinder & Ors. vs Harsh Vohra & Ors. on 18 October, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Sh.Rajinder & Ors. vs Harsh Vohra & Ors. on 18 October, 2011 - 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\/sh-rajinder-ors-vs-harsh-vohra-ors-on-18-october-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sh.Rajinder & Ors. vs Harsh Vohra & Ors. on 18 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-rajinder-ors-vs-harsh-vohra-ors-on-18-october-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-10-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-01T19:38:47+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-rajinder-ors-vs-harsh-vohra-ors-on-18-october-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-rajinder-ors-vs-harsh-vohra-ors-on-18-october-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sh.Rajinder & Ors. vs Harsh Vohra & Ors. on 18 October, 2011","datePublished":"2011-10-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-01T19:38:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-rajinder-ors-vs-harsh-vohra-ors-on-18-october-2011"},"wordCount":2265,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-rajinder-ors-vs-harsh-vohra-ors-on-18-october-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-rajinder-ors-vs-harsh-vohra-ors-on-18-october-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-rajinder-ors-vs-harsh-vohra-ors-on-18-october-2011","name":"Sh.Rajinder & Ors. vs Harsh Vohra & Ors. on 18 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-10-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-01T19:38:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-rajinder-ors-vs-harsh-vohra-ors-on-18-october-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-rajinder-ors-vs-harsh-vohra-ors-on-18-october-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-rajinder-ors-vs-harsh-vohra-ors-on-18-october-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sh.Rajinder & Ors. vs Harsh Vohra & Ors. on 18 October, 2011"}]},{"@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\/123032","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=123032"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123032\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=123032"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=123032"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=123032"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}