{"id":131580,"date":"2011-04-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-04-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-vs-d-on-5-april-2011"},"modified":"2018-08-25T22:04:41","modified_gmt":"2018-08-25T16:34:41","slug":"harish-vs-d-on-5-april-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-vs-d-on-5-april-2011","title":{"rendered":"Harish vs D on 5 April, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Harish vs D on 5 April, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Jayant Patel,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable H.B.Antani,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nFA\/2312\/2010\t 7\/ 7\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nFIRST\nAPPEAL No. 2312 of 2010\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL \n\n \n\n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nHARISH\nRAMANLAL DESAI - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nD\nS CONSTRUCTION CO &amp; 11 - Defendant(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nADIL R MIRZA for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nNOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 1 - 3,3.2.2 -\n4, 4.2.2, 4.2.3,4.2.4 - 12. \nMR MTM HAKIM for Defendant(s) : 2 -\n3. \nNone for Defendant(s) : 3 - 4. \nMR ASPI M KAPADIA for\nDefendant(s) : 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3,4.2.4 -\n12. \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 05\/04\/2011 \n\n \n\n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>(Per<br \/>\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tpresent appeal arises against the judgement and decree dated<br \/>\n\t22.9.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge in Special Civil Suit<br \/>\n\tNo.155 of 1992, whereby the suit is partly allowed against the<br \/>\n\tdefendant Nos.1, 2, and 3 and the plaintiff is directed to pay the<br \/>\n\tcost of defendants No.4 to 12.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tshort facts of the case appear to be that the suit for specific<br \/>\n\tperformance of contract was filed on the ground that for the suit<br \/>\n\tproperty, an agreement to sale was entered into between the<br \/>\n\tplaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3 for a consideration of<br \/>\n\tRs.15,00,001\/-.  As per the plaintiff, the amount of Rs.75,000\/- was<br \/>\n\tpaid as earnest money and thereafter Rs.25,000\/- was additionally<br \/>\n\tpaid.  Thereafter, as the sale deed was not executed, the suit for<br \/>\n\tspecific performance of contract was filed.  The lower Court after<br \/>\n\tthe evidence was recorded and the matter was heard, passed the<br \/>\n\tjudgement and decree, whereby the relief for specific performance of<br \/>\n\tcontract has not been granted and the defendants No.1 to 3 are<br \/>\n\tdirected to pay the amount of Rs.1,50,000\/- to the plaintiff and the<br \/>\n\tdamages claim of Rs.1 crore to the plaintiff by the defendants No.4<br \/>\n\tto 12 is not granted.  However, the lower Court has directed the<br \/>\n\tplaintiff to bare the cost of defendants No.4 to 12.  Under these<br \/>\n\tcircumstances, the present appeal before this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>We<br \/>\n\thave heard Mr.Mirza, learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr.Hakim,<br \/>\n\tlearned Counsel for respondent No.1, 2 and 3 &#8211; original<br \/>\n\tdefendants and Mr.Kapadia, learned Counsel for respondents No.4 to<br \/>\n\t12 &#8211; original defendants No.4 to 12.  We have considered the<br \/>\n\trelevant record and the reasons recorded in the judgement.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tfirst contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is<br \/>\n\tthat in the revenue entry the property was shown in the name of<br \/>\n\toriginal defendants No.1 to 3, therefore, the plaintiff bonafide<br \/>\n\tbelieved that the defendants No.1 to 3 were the owners of the<br \/>\n\tproperty and, therefore, the agreement to sale was entered into and<br \/>\n\tthe earnest money was also paid.  It was submitted that the said<br \/>\n\taspect is proved to the extent that the agreement to sale was<br \/>\n\tentered into and the amount of Rs.1 lac was paid.  However, in spite<br \/>\n\tof the same, the trial Court has not granted the relief for specific<br \/>\n\tperformance of contract and, therefore, there is an error committed<br \/>\n\tby the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\texamination of the said contention shows that upon the evidence on<br \/>\n\trecord, the trial Court has found that the property in question was<br \/>\n\tauctioned in the Court proceedings and vide order dated 26.7.1976<br \/>\n\tthe sale was confirmed in favour of Smt. Fatesinhrao Gaekwad and<br \/>\n\tsale certificate was also issued on 14.4.1977.  Thereafter the said<br \/>\n\tproperty was transferred in favour of M\/s.Alaukik Trading and<br \/>\n\tInvestment Private Limited and the said  M\/s.Alaukik Trading and<br \/>\n\tInvestment Private Limited thereafter sold the property by a<br \/>\n\tregistered sale deed.  Under these circumstances, the trial Court<br \/>\n\thas found that the defendants No.1 to 3 were not owners of the<br \/>\n\tproperty.  Merely because the revenue entry was showing the names of<br \/>\n\tdefendants No.1 to 3 would not result into nullifying the effect of<br \/>\n\tthe registered sale deeds executed long back for transfer of the<br \/>\n\tproperty.   Once the trial Court found that the Defendant Nos.1 to 3<br \/>\n\twere not the owners of the property, the exercise of direction for<br \/>\n\tdeclining the decree for specific performance of contract cannot be<br \/>\n\tsaid to be  an erroneous approach on the part of the trial Court<br \/>\n\teven if the agreement to sale was proved and the part of the<br \/>\n\tconsideration was paid.  If the the sellers were not the owners at<br \/>\n\tthe relevant point of the property in question, they had no title of<br \/>\n\tthe property, which could be conveyed by way of specific performance<br \/>\n\tof contract.  Therefore, the said contention cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n<p>It<br \/>\n\twas next contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that no<br \/>\n\tdamages were ordered to be paid and only there is direction to pay<br \/>\n\tthe amount of Rs.1,50,000\/-, which includes Rs.1,00,000\/- towards<br \/>\n\tthe earnest money and Rs.50,000\/- towards damages.  It was submitted<br \/>\n\tthat because of high appreciation of the property, Rs.50,000\/- was<br \/>\n\tjust a negligible amount towards damages and, therefore, there is an<br \/>\n\terror committed by the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>Prima<br \/>\n\tfacie the contention appears to be attractive but upon close<br \/>\n\tscrutiny, it appears that as per the agreement to sale itself<br \/>\n\tRs.50,000\/- was provided by way of liquidated damages in the event<br \/>\n\tsale deed was not executed.  It is by now well settled that when the<br \/>\n\tliquidated damage is expressly provided under the contract, the<br \/>\n\tparty suffering the breach would be entitled to such amount.  Had it<br \/>\n\tbeen a case where any additional damages were provided, the matter<br \/>\n\twould have been different, but when it was specifically provided for<br \/>\n\tRs.50,000\/- in the event the sale deed was not executed, as the<br \/>\n\tdamages, and if the trial Court has awarded such damages of<br \/>\n\tRs.50,000\/-, the approach cannot be said to be erroneous.\n<\/p>\n<p>It<br \/>\n\twas next contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the<br \/>\n\ttrial Court ought not to have ordered the cost of the defendants<br \/>\n\tNo.4 to 12 to be borne by the plaintiff, more particularly when the<br \/>\n\tagreement for sale was proved and amount of earnest money was also<br \/>\n\tfound as proved.\n<\/p>\n<p>There<br \/>\n\tis considerable force in the submission and we would have considered<br \/>\n\tthe matter further, however, Mr.Kapadia, learned Counsel for<br \/>\n\trespondent Nos.4 to 12 declared before this Court under the<br \/>\n\tinstructions of his clients that they shall not press for the<br \/>\n\texecution of the decree for the costs as mentioned in paragraph 5 of<br \/>\n\tthe operative portion of the judgement. Under these circumstances,<br \/>\n\tthat part of the judgement and decree of the trial Court deserves to<br \/>\n\tbe modified accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>No<br \/>\n\tother contention is raised.\n<\/p>\n<p>In<br \/>\n\tview of the aforesaid, judgement and decree passed by the trial<br \/>\n\tCourt so far as it relates to directing the plaintiff to bear costs<br \/>\n\tof respondent Nos.4 to 12 is quashed and set aside. Rest of the<br \/>\n\tjudgement and the decree passed by the trial Court is not interfered<br \/>\n\twith.  The appeal partly allowed to the aforesaid extent with no<br \/>\n\torder as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p> (Jayant Patel, J.)<\/p>\n<p> (H. B. Antani, J.)<\/p>\n<p>vinod\/pirzada<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Harish vs D on 5 April, 2011 Author: Jayant Patel,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable H.B.Antani,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print FA\/2312\/2010 7\/ 7 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 2312 of 2010 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of [&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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-131580","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Harish vs D on 5 April, 2011 - 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\/harish-vs-d-on-5-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Harish vs D on 5 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-vs-d-on-5-april-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-25T16:34:41+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harish-vs-d-on-5-april-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harish-vs-d-on-5-april-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Harish vs D on 5 April, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-25T16:34:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harish-vs-d-on-5-april-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1069,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harish-vs-d-on-5-april-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harish-vs-d-on-5-april-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harish-vs-d-on-5-april-2011\",\"name\":\"Harish vs D on 5 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-25T16:34:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harish-vs-d-on-5-april-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harish-vs-d-on-5-april-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harish-vs-d-on-5-april-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Harish vs D on 5 April, 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":"Harish vs D on 5 April, 2011 - 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\/harish-vs-d-on-5-april-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Harish vs D on 5 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-vs-d-on-5-april-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-25T16:34:41+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-vs-d-on-5-april-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-vs-d-on-5-april-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Harish vs D on 5 April, 2011","datePublished":"2011-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-25T16:34:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-vs-d-on-5-april-2011"},"wordCount":1069,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-vs-d-on-5-april-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-vs-d-on-5-april-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-vs-d-on-5-april-2011","name":"Harish vs D on 5 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-25T16:34:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-vs-d-on-5-april-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-vs-d-on-5-april-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-vs-d-on-5-april-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Harish vs D on 5 April, 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\/131580","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=131580"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/131580\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=131580"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=131580"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=131580"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}