{"id":136995,"date":"2002-12-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-12-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-h-vittal-reddy-vs-the-manager-district-on-4-december-2002"},"modified":"2017-10-24T21:14:08","modified_gmt":"2017-10-24T15:44:08","slug":"c-h-vittal-reddy-vs-the-manager-district-on-4-december-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-h-vittal-reddy-vs-the-manager-district-on-4-december-2002","title":{"rendered":"C.H. Vittal Reddy vs The Manager, District &#8230; on 4 December, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">National Consumer Disputes Redressal<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">C.H. Vittal Reddy vs The Manager, District &#8230; on 4 December, 2002<\/div>\n<pre>  \n \n \n \n \n \n NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n \n\nNATIONAL\nCONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION\n\n  NEW\nDELHI \n\n \n\n\u00a0 \n\n  REVISION PETITION NO. 2618 OF\n2002 \n\n \n\n(From\nthe order dated 1.7.2002 in\nR.P. No.38\/02 \n\n \n\nof the State Commission, Andhra Pradesh)\n\n \n\n\u00a0 \n\n \n\nC.H. Vittal\nReddy   \nPetitioner\n\n \n\n Vs.\n\n \n\nThe Manager,\nDistrict Co-operative Central\n\n \n\nBank Ltd.\n&amp; Ors.   Respondents\n\n \n\n\u00a0 \n\n \n\n\u00a0 \n\n \n\n BEFORE: \n\n \n\n HONBLE\nMR. JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA,  \n\n \n\n  PRESIDENT \n\n \n\n HONBLE\nMR. JUSTICE J.K. MEHRA, MEMBER. \n\n \n\n MRS.\nRAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER. \n\n \n\n MR.\nB.K. TAIMNI, MEMBER. \n\n \n\n\u00a0 \n\n \n\n\u00a0 \n\n \n\nLimitation -\nSection 24A of the Consumer Protection Act - Proviso to sub section (2)\nof Section 24A - necessary requirements for condonation of delay.\n\n \n\n\u00a0 \n\n \n\n\u00a0 \n\n \n\n  O R D E R \n<\/pre>\n<p> \u00a0 <\/p>\n<p> \u00a0 <\/p>\n<p> \u00a0 <\/p>\n<p> DATED THE 4th December, 2002.\n<\/p>\n<p> \u00a0 <\/p>\n<p> JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA, J. (PRESIDENT) <\/p>\n<p>\u00a0 <\/p>\n<p> It is the complainant<br \/>\nwho is the petitioner before us. His<br \/>\ncomplaint for alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties was dismissed by the District Forum since it was barred by limitation as provided under<br \/>\nSection 24A of the Consumer Protection Act,<br \/>\n1986, as amended. There was a<br \/>\ndelay of 183 days in filing the<br \/>\ncomplaint. No sufficient cause was shown to condone the delay. Appeal against the order of the District<br \/>\nForum was filed before the State Commission which also dismissed the same.<br \/>\nState Commission observed that<br \/>\nthe ground for condonation that the<br \/>\ncomplainant was an old man and was bed ridden<br \/>\nfor more than six months, was hardly sufficient explanation for condonation<br \/>\nof delay and was rightly rejected by the District Forum. It was found that age of the complainant<br \/>\nwas 60 years. There was nothing on the<br \/>\nrecord to show that the complainant was suffering from any ailment. State<br \/>\nCommission, therefore, also dismissed<br \/>\nthe appeal. Aggrieved,<br \/>\ncomplainant has now come before us.\n<\/p>\n<p> No doubt under sub section (2) of Section 24A delay<br \/>\nin filing the complaint could be condoned<br \/>\nand complaint could be entertained after a period of limitation prescribed<br \/>\nunder sub-section (1) and if<br \/>\ncomplainant has sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period,<br \/>\nthen there is a proviso to sub section<br \/>\n(2) which says that no such complaint<br \/>\nshall be entertained unless the Forum<br \/>\nrecords its reason for condoning such delay.<br \/>\nThis proviso has been put to guard the Forum against liberal exercise of<br \/>\nthe provisions of condonation delay<br \/>\nwhen it is a question of filing the complaint. Section 24A we reproduce<br \/>\nfor ready reference.\n<\/p>\n<p>24A.\n<\/p>\n<p>Limitation period. &#8211; (1) The<br \/>\nDistrict Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit<br \/>\na complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the<br \/>\ncause of action has arisen.\n<\/p>\n<p>\u00a0 <\/p>\n<p>(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in<br \/>\nsub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in<br \/>\nsub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State<br \/>\nCommission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had<br \/>\nsufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:\n<\/p>\n<p>\u00a0 <\/p>\n<p>Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National<br \/>\nCommission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be,<br \/>\nrecords its reasons for condoning such delay.\n<\/p>\n<p>\u00a0 <\/p>\n<p>\u00a0 <\/p>\n<p> It would be seen that<br \/>\nwhen it is a question of condoning<br \/>\ndelay in filing appeal either before the State Commission or the National<br \/>\nCommission or even the Supreme<br \/>\nCourt proviso thereunder does not<br \/>\nrequire recording of the reasons for condoning the delay. We reproduce relevant Sections 15, 19 and 23<br \/>\nin juxtaposition to Section 24A<br \/>\nreproduced above.\n<\/p>\n<p>\u00a0 <\/p>\n<p>15. Appeal. &#8211; Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum<br \/>\nmay prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a<br \/>\nperiod of thirty days from the date of the order, in such form and manner as<br \/>\nmay be prescribed:\n<\/p>\n<p>\u00a0 <\/p>\n<p>Provided that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry<br \/>\nof the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient<br \/>\ncause for not filing it within the period <\/p>\n<p>\u00a0 <\/p>\n<p>19.<br \/>\nAppeals.- any person<br \/>\naggrieved by an order made by the State Commission in exercise of its powers<br \/>\nconferred by sub-clause (i) of clause\n<\/p>\n<p>(a) of section 17 may prefer an appeal<br \/>\nagainst such order to the National Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order in<br \/>\nsuch form and manner as may be prescribed:\n<\/p>\n<p>\u00a0 <\/p>\n<p>Provided that the National Commission may entertain an appeal after the<br \/>\nexpiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was<br \/>\nsufficient cause for not filing it within that period.\n<\/p>\n<p>\u00a0 <\/p>\n<p>23. Appeal. &#8211; Any person aggrieved by an order<br \/>\nmade by the National Commission in exercise<br \/>\nof its powers conferred by sub-clause (i)<br \/>\nof clause (a) of Section 21, may prefer an appeal against such order to<br \/>\nthe Supreme Court within a period of thirty days from the date of the order:\n<\/p>\n<p>\u00a0 <\/p>\n<p>Provided that the Supreme Court may<br \/>\nentertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days<br \/>\nif it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within<br \/>\nthat period.\n<\/p>\n<p>\u00a0 <\/p>\n<p> Condonation of delay<br \/>\nwhen it is the complaint has to be taken very seriously and that is why proviso<br \/>\nto sub section (2) of Section 24A<br \/>\nmandates recording of reasons. It<br \/>\nmust be understood that a suit filed in a Civil Court after the period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation<br \/>\nAct has to be dismissed and there is no provision for condoning the delay on<br \/>\nthe ground of any sufficient cause being shown for not filing the suit within<br \/>\nthe period of limitation. This is the law<br \/>\nwhich is in force since 1908<br \/>\nwhen the Limitation Act, 1908 came into<br \/>\nforce and same is the position of the Limitation Act, 1963. Sub section (2) of<br \/>\nSection 24A is a departure to the well<br \/>\nsettled law that a suit beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the<br \/>\nLimitation Act has to be<br \/>\ndismissed. A Consumer Forum has, therefore, to guard itself against the<br \/>\nmisuse of sub-section (2) of Section<br \/>\n24A and should not be quick to condone<br \/>\nthe delay unless cogent and verifiable<br \/>\nreasons exist to condone the delay.\n<\/p>\n<p>Moreover delay cannot be condoned unless other party has been noticed<br \/>\nand heard.\n<\/p>\n<p> In the present case as has been held by the State Commission firstly a wrong statement was made that the complainant was 80<br \/>\nyears of age and in fact his age was 60<br \/>\nyears and again there is nothing to<br \/>\nshow that he was suffering from any illness.<br \/>\nState Commission said it was merely ipse dixit of the complainant. We<br \/>\nagree. This petition is, therefore,<br \/>\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\u00a0 <\/p>\n<p>\u00a0 <\/p>\n<p>J<\/p>\n<p>( D.P. WADHWA)<\/p>\n<p>PRESIDENT<\/p>\n<p>J<\/p>\n<p>(J.K. MEHRA)<\/p>\n<p> MEMBER<\/p>\n<p>\u00a0 <\/p>\n<p>\u00a0 <\/p>\n<p>(RAJYALAKSHMI RAO)<\/p>\n<p>  MEMBER<\/p>\n<p>\u00a0 <\/p>\n<p>(B.K. TAIMNI)<\/p>\n<p>  MEMBER<\/p>\n<p>\u00a0 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>National Consumer Disputes Redressal C.H. Vittal Reddy vs The Manager, District &#8230; on 4 December, 2002 NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI \u00a0 REVISION PETITION NO. 2618 OF 2002 (From the order dated 1.7.2002 in R.P. No.38\/02 of the State Commission, Andhra Pradesh) \u00a0 C.H. Vittal Reddy Petitioner Vs. [&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":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-136995","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>C.H. Vittal Reddy vs The Manager, District ... on 4 December, 2002 - 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\/c-h-vittal-reddy-vs-the-manager-district-on-4-december-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"C.H. Vittal Reddy vs The Manager, District ... on 4 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-h-vittal-reddy-vs-the-manager-district-on-4-december-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-24T15:44:08+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-h-vittal-reddy-vs-the-manager-district-on-4-december-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-h-vittal-reddy-vs-the-manager-district-on-4-december-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"C.H. Vittal Reddy vs The Manager, District &#8230; on 4 December, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-24T15:44:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-h-vittal-reddy-vs-the-manager-district-on-4-december-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1001,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-h-vittal-reddy-vs-the-manager-district-on-4-december-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-h-vittal-reddy-vs-the-manager-district-on-4-december-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-h-vittal-reddy-vs-the-manager-district-on-4-december-2002\",\"name\":\"C.H. Vittal Reddy vs The Manager, District ... on 4 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-24T15:44:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-h-vittal-reddy-vs-the-manager-district-on-4-december-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-h-vittal-reddy-vs-the-manager-district-on-4-december-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-h-vittal-reddy-vs-the-manager-district-on-4-december-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"C.H. Vittal Reddy vs The Manager, District &#8230; on 4 December, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"C.H. Vittal Reddy vs The Manager, District ... on 4 December, 2002 - 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\/c-h-vittal-reddy-vs-the-manager-district-on-4-december-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"C.H. Vittal Reddy vs The Manager, District ... on 4 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-h-vittal-reddy-vs-the-manager-district-on-4-december-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-24T15:44:08+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-h-vittal-reddy-vs-the-manager-district-on-4-december-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-h-vittal-reddy-vs-the-manager-district-on-4-december-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"C.H. Vittal Reddy vs The Manager, District &#8230; on 4 December, 2002","datePublished":"2002-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-24T15:44:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-h-vittal-reddy-vs-the-manager-district-on-4-december-2002"},"wordCount":1001,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-h-vittal-reddy-vs-the-manager-district-on-4-december-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-h-vittal-reddy-vs-the-manager-district-on-4-december-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-h-vittal-reddy-vs-the-manager-district-on-4-december-2002","name":"C.H. Vittal Reddy vs The Manager, District ... on 4 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-24T15:44:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-h-vittal-reddy-vs-the-manager-district-on-4-december-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-h-vittal-reddy-vs-the-manager-district-on-4-december-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-h-vittal-reddy-vs-the-manager-district-on-4-december-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"C.H. Vittal Reddy vs The Manager, District &#8230; on 4 December, 2002"}]},{"@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\/136995","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=136995"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/136995\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=136995"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=136995"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=136995"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}