{"id":141274,"date":"2009-10-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-and-another-vs-yasina-and-others-on-6-october-2009"},"modified":"2017-08-27T17:56:34","modified_gmt":"2017-08-27T12:26:34","slug":"kailash-and-another-vs-yasina-and-others-on-6-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-and-another-vs-yasina-and-others-on-6-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"Kailash And Another vs Yasina And Others on 6 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Kailash And Another vs Yasina And Others on 6 October, 2009<\/div>\n
CR No.5150 of 2004                                                      [1]\n\nIN   THE     HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB                    AND HARYANA AT\n                      CHANDIGARH\n\n\n\n                                       Civil Revision No.5150 of 2004\n\n                                       Date of Decision: 06 - 10 - 2009\n\n\n\nKailash and another                                        ....Petitioner\n\n                                 v.\n\nYasina and others                                          ....Respondents\n\n\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA\n\n                                 ***\n\nPresent:     Mr.Naresh Prabhakar, Advocate\n             for the petitioners.\n\n             Mr.Amit Kumar Jain, Advocate\n             for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4.\n\n                                 ***\n\nKANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J.\n<\/pre>\n
             Kailash son of Kishan, his mother Smt. Savitri has preferred the<\/p>\n
present revision petition.    They are aggrieved against the order dated<\/p>\n
7.9.2004 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ferozepur Jhirka,<\/p>\n
whereby their application for amendment of the plaint was rejected.<\/p>\n
Petitioners herein had instituted a suit on 31.1.1996 for permanent<\/p>\n
injunction. Ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering<\/p>\n
in their peaceful possession over the suit land was granted and affirmed on<\/p>\n
17.5.1996. On account of non appearance of the petitioner-plaintiffs and<\/p>\n
their counsel, the suit was dismissed in default on 7.12.1996.                An<\/p>\n
application for restoration of the suit was filed by the petitioner-plaintiffs on
\n CR No.5150 of 2004                                                      [2]<\/p>\n
20.5.1996 and the case was restored at its original number on 14.8.1997.<\/p>\n
             The case of the petitioner-plaintiffs is that after dismissal of the<\/p>\n
suit in default, defendant Nos.1,2 and 3 encroached upon the suit property<\/p>\n
and raised some construction by building walls and rooms on the suit<\/p>\n
property. The petitioner-plaintiffs projected that since construction had<\/p>\n
been raised by the defendants after institution of the suit, they are entitled to<\/p>\n
the relief of mandatory injunction and grant of prayer for demolition of<\/p>\n
walls and rooms built by defendant Nos.1 to 3, therefore, a prayer had been<\/p>\n
made that they be allowed to amend the plaint by adding para 3-A and<\/p>\n
amend para 8 of the plaint as per the details given in para 4 of the<\/p>\n
application for amendment.        Respondent-defendants filed reply to the<\/p>\n
application. In the application so filed, preliminary objection regarding<\/p>\n
maintainability, mala fide, estoppel and misuse of process of law were<\/p>\n
pleaded. On merits, it was denied that they had encroached upon any part of<\/p>\n
the suit land. It was asserted that respondent-defendants are owners in<\/p>\n
possession of their own land and the petitioner-plaintiffs are not entitled to<\/p>\n
alleged relief of mandatory injunction, therefore, their application for<\/p>\n
amendment of the plaint is liable to be rejected. It was urged that by<\/p>\n
proposed amendment, petitioner-plaintiffs intend to change very nature of<\/p>\n
the suit.\n<\/p>\n
             The Court below formulated an opinion that amendment of the<\/p>\n
plaint is not warranted, as the applicant-plaintiffs had given no date on<\/p>\n
which alleged encroachment over the property was made. The Court below<\/p>\n
was of the view that the suit was dismissed in default on 7.12.1996, restored<\/p>\n
on 14.8.1997, thus, technically no suit was pending even though application<\/p>\n
for restoration of the suit was pending. It was held by the Court below that
\n CR No.5150 of 2004                                                    [3]<\/p>\n
the application for restoration was filed on 20.12.1996, whereas suit was<\/p>\n
dismissed in default on 7.12.1996. The possibility that the construction was<\/p>\n
raised in between cannot be ruled out. On this premise, the amendment of<\/p>\n
the plaint was dis-allowed.\n<\/p>\n
            Mr.Naresh Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
petitioner-plaintiffs has relied upon Ragu Thilak D. John v. S. Rayappan<\/p>\n
and others<\/a>, AIR 2001 SC 699 and has canvassed that for allowing<\/p>\n
amendment, the Court should adopt liberal approach in order to minimise<\/p>\n
the litigation. Paragraphs 5 and 6 in Ragu Thilak D. John’s case (supra)<\/p>\n
relied upon by the learned counsel read as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                     “5.   After referring to the judgments in Charan Das v.<\/p>\n
            Amir Khan, AIR 1921 PC 50, L.J.Leach & Co. Ltd. v. Jardine<\/p>\n
            Skinner & Company,<\/a> 1957 SCR 438: (AIR 1957 SC 357),<\/p>\n
            Smt.Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar,<\/a> (1974) 2 SCC 393: (AIR 1974<\/p>\n
            SC 1126), M\/s. Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram,<\/a> (1978)2 SCC<\/p>\n
            91: (AIR 1978 SC 84) and various other authorities, this Court<\/p>\n
            in B.K.N.Pillai v. P. Pillai,<\/a> (1999)10 JT (SC) 61: (2000 AIR<\/p>\n
            SCW 43: AIR 2000 SC 614) held: (Para 3):\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                           “The purpose and object of Order 6, Rule 17,<\/p>\n
                     C.P.C. is to allow either party to alter or amend his<\/p>\n
                     pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be<\/p>\n
                     just. The power to allow the amendment is wide and can<\/p>\n
                     be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the<\/p>\n
                     interests of justice on the basis of guide-lines laid down<\/p>\n
                     by various High Courts and this Court. It is true that the<\/p>\n
                     amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and
\n CR No.5150 of 2004                                                      [4]<\/p>\n
                     under all circumstances. But it is equally true that the<\/p>\n
                     Courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt<\/p>\n
                     hypertechnical approach. Liberal approach should be the<\/p>\n
                     general rule particularly in cases where the other side can<\/p>\n
                     be compensated with the costs. Technicalities of law<\/p>\n
                     should not be permitted to hamper the Courts in the<\/p>\n
                     administration    of    justice   between    the   parties.<\/p>\n
                     Amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid<\/p>\n
                     uncalled for multiplicity of litigation.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
                     6.    If the aforesaid test is applied in the instant case,<\/p>\n
            the amendment sought could not be declined. The dominant<\/p>\n
            purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimise the<\/p>\n
            litigation. The plea that the relief sought by way of amendment<\/p>\n
            was barred by time is arguable in the circumstances of the case,<\/p>\n
            as is evident from the perusal of averments made in paras 8(a)<\/p>\n
            to 8(f) of the plaint which were sought to be incorporated by<\/p>\n
            way of amendment. We feel that in the circumstances of the<\/p>\n
            case the plea of limitation being disputed could be made a<\/p>\n
            subject matter of the issue after allowing the amendment prayed<\/p>\n
            for.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Counsel for the petitioners has further relied upon Sampath Kumar v.<\/p>\n
Ayyakannu and<\/a> another, 2002(2) PLJ 445 wherein their Lordships of the<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Apex Court had observed as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                     “11. In the present case the amendment is being sought<\/p>\n
            for almost 11 years after the date of the institution of the suit.<\/p>\n
            The plaintiff is not debarred from instituting a new suit seeking
\n CR No.5150 of 2004                                                 [5]<\/p>\n
            relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession on the<\/p>\n
            same basic facts are are pleaded in the plaint seeking relief of<\/p>\n
            issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction and which is<\/p>\n
            pending. In order to avoid multiplicity of suits it would be a<\/p>\n
            sound exercise of discretion to permit the relief of declaration<\/p>\n
            of title and recovery of possession being sought for in the<\/p>\n
            pending suit. The plaintiff has alleged the cause of action for<\/p>\n
            the reliefs now sought to be added as having arisen to him<\/p>\n
            during the pendency of the suit. The merits of the averments<\/p>\n
            sought to be incorporated by way of amendment are not to be<\/p>\n
            judged at the stage of allowing prayer for amendment.<\/p>\n
            However, the defendant is right in submitting that if he has<\/p>\n
            already perfected his title by way of adverse possession then<\/p>\n
            the right so accrued should not be allowed to be defeated by<\/p>\n
            permitting an amendment and seeking a new relief which<\/p>\n
            would relate back to the date of the suit and thereby depriving<\/p>\n
            the defendant of the advantage accrued to him by lapse of time,<\/p>\n
            by excluding a period of about 11 years in calculating the<\/p>\n
            period of prescriptive title claimed to have been earned by the<\/p>\n
            defendant. The interest of the defendant can be protected by<\/p>\n
            directing that so far as the reliefs of declaration of title and<\/p>\n
            recovery of possession, now sought for, are concerned the<\/p>\n
            prayer in that regard shall be deemed to have been made on the<\/p>\n
            date on which the application for amendment has been filed.<\/p>\n
                     12.   On the averments made in the application, the<\/p>\n
            same ought to have been allowed. If the facts alleged by the
\n CR No.5150 of 2004                                                    [6]<\/p>\n
            plaintiff are not correct it is open for the defendant to take such<\/p>\n
            plea in the written statement and if the plaintiff fails in<\/p>\n
            substantiating the factual averments and\/or the defendant<\/p>\n
            succeeds in substantiating the plea which he would obviously<\/p>\n
            be permitted to raise in his pleading by way of consequential<\/p>\n
            amendment then the suit shall be liable to be dismissed. The<\/p>\n
            defendant is not prejudiced, moreso when the amendment was<\/p>\n
            sought for before the commencement of the trial.”\n<\/p>\n
            Mr.Amit Kumar Jain, learned counsel appearing for respondent<\/p>\n
Nos.1, 2 and 4 has urged that issues in the present case were framed on<\/p>\n
17.5.1996 after completion of pleadings and the case was fixed for<\/p>\n
plaintiffs’ evidence on 7.12.1996. On 7.12.1996 instead of leading any<\/p>\n
evidence, plaintiffs remained absent from the Court and their case was<\/p>\n
dismissed in default. Application for restoration of the case was filed on<\/p>\n
20.12.1996 and thereafter the case was restored on 14.8.1997. It was urged<\/p>\n
that application for amendment of the plaint was filed after a period of<\/p>\n
seven months.\n<\/p>\n
            Counsel for the respondent-defendants has further submitted<\/p>\n
that on 14.1.1997 suit land was demarcated by the revenue officials on the<\/p>\n
application moved by Kailash petitioner-plaintiff and it was found on that<\/p>\n
day that pucca construction of the suit land was already existing and no<\/p>\n
fresh construction had been raised.         According to counsel for the<\/p>\n
respondent-defendants, petitioner-plaintiffs have not come to this Court<\/p>\n
with clean hands. It was further submitted that after framing of issues, the<\/p>\n
trial commenced and, therefore, amendment cannot be allowed.<\/p>\n
            The impugned order was passed on 7.9.2004. On 19.11.2004,
\n CR No.5150 of 2004                                                     [7]<\/p>\n
this Court had stayed further proceedings before the trial Court. After<\/p>\n
hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that prayer for<\/p>\n
amendment must satisfy two conditions (i) that it is not causing injustice to<\/p>\n
the other side; and (ii) the proposed amendment is necessary for the purpose<\/p>\n
of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. On<\/p>\n
both the counts, petitioners are entitled to succeed and their prayer for<\/p>\n
amendment of the plaint ought to be allowed.           It will not only avoid<\/p>\n
multiplicity of litigation but can also take notice of subsequent events.<\/p>\n
However, the plea raised by counsel for the respondent-defendants that<\/p>\n
there is delay on the part of the petitioner-plaintiffs to approach the Court, I<\/p>\n
am of the view that for this lapse, the respondent-defendants can be<\/p>\n
compensated by awarding costs.         Thus, the present revision petition is<\/p>\n
allowed. The petitioners are permitted to amend the plaint. However, for<\/p>\n
the delay in approaching the trial Court, the respondent-defendants are<\/p>\n
required to be compensated by fastening the petitioners with costs of<\/p>\n
Rs.5,000\/-. On deposit of costs, the application for amendment of the plaint<\/p>\n
shall be allowed by the trial Court.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n                                ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA )\nOctober 6, 2009                            JUDGE\nRC\n <\/pre>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Kailash And Another vs Yasina And Others on 6 October, 2009 CR No.5150 of 2004 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5150 of 2004 Date of Decision: 06 – 10 – 2009 Kailash and another ….Petitioner v. Yasina and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-141274","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKailash And Another vs Yasina And Others on 6 October, 2009 - 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\/kailash-and-another-vs-yasina-and-others-on-6-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kailash And Another vs Yasina And Others on 6 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-and-another-vs-yasina-and-others-on-6-october-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-27T12:26:34+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kailash-and-another-vs-yasina-and-others-on-6-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kailash-and-another-vs-yasina-and-others-on-6-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kailash And Another vs Yasina And Others on 6 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-27T12:26:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kailash-and-another-vs-yasina-and-others-on-6-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1655,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kailash-and-another-vs-yasina-and-others-on-6-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kailash-and-another-vs-yasina-and-others-on-6-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kailash-and-another-vs-yasina-and-others-on-6-october-2009\",\"name\":\"Kailash And Another vs Yasina And Others on 6 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-27T12:26:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kailash-and-another-vs-yasina-and-others-on-6-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kailash-and-another-vs-yasina-and-others-on-6-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kailash-and-another-vs-yasina-and-others-on-6-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kailash And Another vs Yasina And Others on 6 October, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Kailash And Another vs Yasina And Others on 6 October, 2009 - 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\/kailash-and-another-vs-yasina-and-others-on-6-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kailash And Another vs Yasina And Others on 6 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-and-another-vs-yasina-and-others-on-6-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-27T12:26:34+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-and-another-vs-yasina-and-others-on-6-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-and-another-vs-yasina-and-others-on-6-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kailash And Another vs Yasina And Others on 6 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-27T12:26:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-and-another-vs-yasina-and-others-on-6-october-2009"},"wordCount":1655,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-and-another-vs-yasina-and-others-on-6-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-and-another-vs-yasina-and-others-on-6-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-and-another-vs-yasina-and-others-on-6-october-2009","name":"Kailash And Another vs Yasina And Others on 6 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-27T12:26:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-and-another-vs-yasina-and-others-on-6-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-and-another-vs-yasina-and-others-on-6-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-and-another-vs-yasina-and-others-on-6-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kailash And Another vs Yasina And Others on 6 October, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/141274","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=141274"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/141274\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=141274"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=141274"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=141274"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}