{"id":126037,"date":"2007-03-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-03-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-kokila-and-others-on-27-march-2007"},"modified":"2018-11-01T09:26:48","modified_gmt":"2018-11-01T03:56:48","slug":"the-vs-kokila-and-others-on-27-march-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-kokila-and-others-on-27-march-2007","title":{"rendered":"The vs Kokila And Others on 27 March, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
The vs Kokila And Others on 27 March, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n \t  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\n\t\t      DATED: 27.03.2007\n\n   \t\t\t    CORAM\n\n             The Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.Jyothimani\n\n\n                    C.M.P. No.9691 of 2006\n                             in\n                      S.A. No.43 of 1998\n\nORDER\n<\/pre>\n
~~~~~<\/p>\n
      The  appellant  in  the Second Appeal  has  filed  the<\/p>\n
present  petition  under Order 23 Rule 1 of  Code  of  Civil<\/p>\n
Procedure  praying  for  leave to  withdraw  the  suit  with<\/p>\n
liberty  to  institute a fresh suit on  the  same  cause  of<\/p>\n
action.   The petitioner has filed the suit in O.S.No.88  of<\/p>\n
1989  on  the file of District Munsiff, Gudalur against  the<\/p>\n
respondent  praying  for an order of injunction  restraining<\/p>\n
him from interfering with his possession.  The suit property<\/p>\n
was  to  the  extent of 3.30 acres comprised in R.S.No.382\/1<\/p>\n
Old No.113\/1 in Masinagudi Village, Gudalur Sub District and<\/p>\n
Nilgris District.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     2.  It is seen in the plaint that the plaintiff’s claim<\/p>\n
is  based on a sale deed stated to have been executed by the<\/p>\n
Official Receiver, Coimbatore in I.P.No.3 of 1968 registered<\/p>\n
document  No.2425 of 1977 in the Office of Joint  Registrar,<\/p>\n
Coimbatore.   It is also specifically stated in  the  plaint<\/p>\n
that  to  the  knowledge of the plaintiff the defendant  has<\/p>\n
purchased  + share of the suit property from one Ganesh  Rao<\/p>\n
in  1987  however stating that the said Ganesh Rao does  not<\/p>\n
have   any  title  to convey.  It is also the  case  of  the<\/p>\n
plaintiff  that he has been in possession as a  owner  since<\/p>\n
1964   and  perfected  title  by  adverse  possession  also.<\/p>\n
Apprehending that the defendant may enter into the property,<\/p>\n
a suit for injunction was filed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     3.  It is seen that the defendant has filed the written<\/p>\n
statement on 19.11.1989 disputing the title of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
in  respect  of  the  suit property,  apart  from  disputing<\/p>\n
possession  of the plaintiff also.  It is also the  specific<\/p>\n
case  of the defendant that the defendant has purchased  the<\/p>\n
property  to an extent of 3.30 acres comprised in S.No.113\/1<\/p>\n
presently  R.S.No.382\/1  from  the  previous  owner   Ganesh<\/p>\n
Prasanna,  S\/o  Jaganatha Rao under a registered  sale  deed<\/p>\n
dated  05.05.1987 and registered document No.822\/87  on  the<\/p>\n
file  of  the  Sub-Registrar, Gudalur  and  the  defendant’s<\/p>\n
vendor  was in possession dating back to 1975.  It  is  also<\/p>\n
specifically stated in the written statement in paragraph 11<\/p>\n
that the suit without declaration is not maintainable in the<\/p>\n
following terms:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     “11.   In  any view of the case, the suit  is  not<\/p>\n
     maintainable without the prayer of declaration  of<\/p>\n
     the   plaintiff’s  title  if  any,  to  the   suit<\/p>\n
     property.   The plaintiff’s own documents  falsify<\/p>\n
     his case.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      4.   It is with that specific pleading the matter  was<\/p>\n
taken  up for trail.  While the Trial Court has decreed  the<\/p>\n
suit  for injunction, the First Appellate Court has  allowed<\/p>\n
the  appeal  of  the defendant and dismissed  the  suit,  as<\/p>\n
against which the second appeal is filed.  It is pending the<\/p>\n
Second  Appeal the present petition is filed under Order  23<\/p>\n
Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      5.  Mr.S.V.Jayaraman, learned Senior Counsel appearing<\/p>\n
for  the  petitioner  would  submit  that  by  allowing  the<\/p>\n
petition  with permission to the plaintiff to file  a  fresh<\/p>\n
suit  on  the  same  cause of action, no prejudice  will  be<\/p>\n
caused  to  the defendants, since the defendants rights  are<\/p>\n
not  going  to be affected.  While it is admitted  that  the<\/p>\n
contents  of  the pleadings are definite that the  plaintiff<\/p>\n
has  come  to the Court based on a document, which has  been<\/p>\n
denied  by the defendant, who has made a claim that  he  has<\/p>\n
purchased the property under a document.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       6.    Mr.S.Parthasarathy,  learned   Senior   Counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for the respondent would submit that such  liberty<\/p>\n
to  file a fresh suit on the same cause of action may not be<\/p>\n
given.   Even though the learned Senior Counsel would submit<\/p>\n
that  such power is discretionary in nature, merely  because<\/p>\n
no  prejudice  will be caused to the defendant  that  itself<\/p>\n
cannot be the ground for granting such permission.  He would<\/p>\n
submit  that while the suit was filed in 1989 and the  Trial<\/p>\n
Court  has given a judgement on 14.10.1996, the First Appeal<\/p>\n
Court  has  given  judgement on 03.09.1997  and  the  Second<\/p>\n
Appeal  itself has been pending before this Court from  1998<\/p>\n
onwards,  the  petitioner has chosen  to  file  the  present<\/p>\n
petition  in  September 2006, which is not only belated  but<\/p>\n
the   conduct   of  the  petitioner  must  be   taken   into<\/p>\n
consideration while grating such permission.<\/p>\n
      7.   He  would  also  state that when  the  title  was<\/p>\n
disputed  by the defendant in the written statement  at  the<\/p>\n
earliest  point of time and in spite of the denial of  title<\/p>\n
if  the plaintiff has not taken steps to amend the plaint at<\/p>\n
the earliest point of time, he cannot be permitted to do  so<\/p>\n
in  the  Second Appeal stage.  He would also rely  upon  the<\/p>\n
judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in AIR  2000<\/p>\n
SC  2132  to substantiate his contention that the discretion<\/p>\n
any  power has to be exercised cautiously.  It is true  that<\/p>\n
Order 23 Rule 1 starts with the word “at any time after  the<\/p>\n
institution of a suit”, which includes the pendency  of  the<\/p>\n
appeal  also  but ultimately under Order 23 Rule  1(3),  the<\/p>\n
Code  of  Civil  Procedure states that it  is  only  on  the<\/p>\n
sufficient grounds being made out, a party can be allowed to<\/p>\n
institute a fresh suit on the same subject matter,  however,<\/p>\n
subject to certain terms.  The said clause runs as follows:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     “(3)  Where the Court is satisfied,-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
     (a)   that  a  suit must fail by  reason  of  some<\/p>\n
     formal defect, or<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     (b) that there are sufficient grounds for allowing<\/p>\n
     the  plaintiff to institute a fresh suit  for  the<\/p>\n
     subject matter of a suit or part of a claim,<\/p>\n
     it  may, on such terms as it thinks fit, grant the<\/p>\n
     plaintiff permission to withdraw from such suit or<\/p>\n
     such part of the claim with liberty to institute a<\/p>\n
     fresh  suit  in respect of the subject  matter  of<\/p>\n
     such suit or such part of the claim.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      8.  While construing the said discertionary powers, as<\/p>\n
rightly  pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel  for  the<\/p>\n
respondent,  the  Hon’ble Supreme  Court  in  the  judgement<\/p>\n
rendered  in K.S.Bhoopathy and others Vs. Kokila and  others<\/p>\n
reported  in  AIR  2000  SC  2132,  has  held  that   merely<\/p>\n
safeguarding  the interest of defendants is  not  sufficient<\/p>\n
for  the purpose of granting permission to withdraw the suit<\/p>\n
with  liberty  to  file a fresh suit on the  same  cause  of<\/p>\n
action  and  the Court has to consider the entire  situation<\/p>\n
while  exercising the discretion since the provision  is  an<\/p>\n
exception  to  the  common law principle  of  non  suit.   A<\/p>\n
distinction has been made between Order 23 Rule 1(1) and  3.<\/p>\n
The  Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that it is not only<\/p>\n
the  interest of the defendant, which has to be  safeguarded<\/p>\n
but  also may result in the amendment of right vested in the<\/p>\n
third  party  apart from stating that such a permission  may<\/p>\n
result  in wastage of public time of Courts in the following<\/p>\n
words:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
    “12.   The provision in Order XXII Rule 1 C.P.C.is<\/p>\n
    an  exception to the common law principle  of  non<\/p>\n
    suit.  Therefore on principle an application by  a<\/p>\n
    plaintiff under sub-rule (3) cannot be treated  on<\/p>\n
    par  with an application by him in exercise of the<\/p>\n
    absolute liberty given to him under sub-rule  (1).<\/p>\n
    In   the  former  it  is  actually  a  prayer  for<\/p>\n
    concession  from  the Court after  satisfying  the<\/p>\n
    Court  regarding  existence of  the  circumstances<\/p>\n
    justifying  the  grant  of  such  concession.   No<\/p>\n
    doubt,  the  grant  of  leave  envisaged  in  sub-<\/p>\n
    rule(3)  of  Rule  1 is at the discretion  of  the<\/p>\n
    Court  but  such discretion is to be exercised  by<\/p>\n
    the  Court  with caution and circumspection.   The<\/p>\n
    legislative  policy in the matter of  exercise  of<\/p>\n
    discretion  is clear from the provisions  of  sub-<\/p>\n
    rule  (3)  in which two alternatives are provided.<\/p>\n
    (1)  where the Court is satisfied that a suit must<\/p>\n
    fail  by  reason  of some formal defect,  and  the<\/p>\n
    other where the Court is satisfied that there  are<\/p>\n
    sufficient  grounds for allowing the plaintiff  to<\/p>\n
    institute  a fresh suit for the subject matter  of<\/p>\n
    a  suit  or part of a claim.  Clause (b)  of  sub-<\/p>\n
    rule  (3)  contains the mandate to the Court  that<\/p>\n
    it  must be satisfied about the sufficiency of the<\/p>\n
    grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute  a<\/p>\n
    fresh  suit  for  the same claim or  part  of  the<\/p>\n
    claim  on the same cause of action.  The Court  is<\/p>\n
    to   discharge   the  duty  mandated   under   the<\/p>\n
    provision    of   the   Code   on   taking    into<\/p>\n
    consideration all relevant aspects of  the  matter<\/p>\n
    including  the  desirability  of  permitting   the<\/p>\n
    party to start a fresh round of litigation on  the<\/p>\n
    same  cause of action.  This becomes all the  more<\/p>\n
    important  in  a case where the application  under<\/p>\n
    Order XXIII Rule (1) is filed by the plaintiff  at<\/p>\n
    the  stage  of appeal.  Grant of leave in  such  a<\/p>\n
    case  would  result in the unsuccessful  plaintiff<\/p>\n
    to  avoid  the decree or decrees against  him  and<\/p>\n
    seek a fresh adjudication of the controversy on  a<\/p>\n
    clean   slate.    It  may  also  result   in   the<\/p>\n
    contesting  defendant  losing  the  advantage   of<\/p>\n
    adjudication  of  the  dispute  by  the  Court  or<\/p>\n
    Courts  below.  Grant of permission for withdrawal<\/p>\n
    of  a  suit  with leave to file a fresh  suit  may<\/p>\n
    also result in annulment of a right vested in  the<\/p>\n
    defendant   or   even   a   third   party.     The<\/p>\n
    appellate\/second appellate Court should apply  its<\/p>\n
    mind  to  the  case with a view to  ensure  strict<\/p>\n
    compliance  with  the  conditions  prescribed   in<\/p>\n
    Order XXIII, Rule 1(3), C.P.C for exercise of  the<\/p>\n
    discretionary  power in permitting the  suit  with<\/p>\n
    leave  to  file a fresh suit on the same cause  of<\/p>\n
    action.   Yet  another reason in support  of  this<\/p>\n
    view   is  that  withdrawal  of  a  suit  at   the<\/p>\n
    appellate  \/  second appellate  stage  results  in<\/p>\n
    wastage  of  public  time of Courts  which  is  of<\/p>\n
    considerable  importance in the  present  time  in<\/p>\n
    view  of  large  accumulation of  cases  in  lower<\/p>\n
    Courts  and  inordinate delay in disposal  of  the<\/p>\n
    cases.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      9.  In the present case as I have narrated above, when<\/p>\n
the  defendant  has specifically denied  the  title  of  the<\/p>\n
plaintiff and the plaintiff has come forward not only on the<\/p>\n
basis  of title by adverse possession but also basically  on<\/p>\n
the  basis of the title based on document, it cannot be said<\/p>\n
as  if  the plaintiff was not aware that he should seek  for<\/p>\n
declaration.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      10.   In  this regard as rightly pointed  out  by  the<\/p>\n
learned   Senior  Counsel  for  the  respondent,  which   is<\/p>\n
relevant,  as I have enumerated above that the defendant  in<\/p>\n
the  written  statement filed in the suit  has  specifically<\/p>\n
stated that the suit for bare injunction is not maintainable<\/p>\n
without  declaration.   That was  filed  as  early  as  19th<\/p>\n
November  1989.   In  spite of that the  plaintiff  has  not<\/p>\n
chosen  to  make  any  efforts  to  amend  the  pleading  in<\/p>\n
accordance  with  the Code of Civil Procedure,  which  gives<\/p>\n
enormous powers.  Having allowed the Trial Court to  proceed<\/p>\n
and  the First Appellate Court to go ahead with the case and<\/p>\n
even in the Second Appeal stage, which was admitted as early<\/p>\n
as  in  the year 1998 after the lapse of nearly 9 years  the<\/p>\n
present  petition is filed for a permission to withdraw  the<\/p>\n
suit  with  liberty to file a fresh suit on  same  cause  of<\/p>\n
action.  By applying the yardstick stipulated by the Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Supreme  Court  as  stated above  and  in  exercise  of  the<\/p>\n
discretionary powers granted under Order 23 Rule  1  (3)  of<\/p>\n
the  Code of Civil Procedure, I do not think that this is  a<\/p>\n
fit case wherein leave can be given to the plaintiff to file<\/p>\n
a  fresh suit on same cause of action.  In view of the same,<\/p>\n
the C.M.P.is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
nbj<\/p>\n
[PRV\/10217]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court The vs Kokila And Others on 27 March, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27.03.2007 CORAM The Hon’ble Mr.Justice P.Jyothimani C.M.P. No.9691 of 2006 in S.A. No.43 of 1998 ORDER ~~~~~ The appellant in the Second Appeal has filed the present petition under Order 23 Rule 1 of […]<\/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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-126037","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe vs Kokila And Others on 27 March, 2007 - 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\/the-vs-kokila-and-others-on-27-march-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The vs Kokila And Others on 27 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-kokila-and-others-on-27-march-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-03-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-01T03:56:48+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-kokila-and-others-on-27-march-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-kokila-and-others-on-27-march-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The vs Kokila And Others on 27 March, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-03-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-01T03:56:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-kokila-and-others-on-27-march-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1905,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-kokila-and-others-on-27-march-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-kokila-and-others-on-27-march-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-kokila-and-others-on-27-march-2007\",\"name\":\"The vs Kokila And Others on 27 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-03-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-01T03:56:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-kokila-and-others-on-27-march-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-kokila-and-others-on-27-march-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-kokila-and-others-on-27-march-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The vs Kokila And Others on 27 March, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"The vs Kokila And Others on 27 March, 2007 - 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\/the-vs-kokila-and-others-on-27-march-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The vs Kokila And Others on 27 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-kokila-and-others-on-27-march-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-03-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-01T03:56:48+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-kokila-and-others-on-27-march-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-kokila-and-others-on-27-march-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The vs Kokila And Others on 27 March, 2007","datePublished":"2007-03-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-01T03:56:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-kokila-and-others-on-27-march-2007"},"wordCount":1905,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-kokila-and-others-on-27-march-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-kokila-and-others-on-27-march-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-kokila-and-others-on-27-march-2007","name":"The vs Kokila And Others on 27 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-03-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-01T03:56:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-kokila-and-others-on-27-march-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-kokila-and-others-on-27-march-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-kokila-and-others-on-27-march-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The vs Kokila And Others on 27 March, 2007"}]},{"@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\/126037","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=126037"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/126037\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=126037"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=126037"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=126037"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}