{"id":15872,"date":"2011-11-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-11-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/3-vs-3-on-16-november-2011"},"modified":"2017-07-06T04:46:38","modified_gmt":"2017-07-05T23:16:38","slug":"3-vs-3-on-16-november-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/3-vs-3-on-16-november-2011","title":{"rendered":"&#8211; 3 vs &#8211; 3 on 16 November, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">&#8211; 3 vs &#8211; 3 on 16 November, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: J.B.Pardiwala,<\/div>\n<pre>  \n Gujarat High Court Case Information System \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\nSCA\/6382\/2004\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\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 6382 of 2004\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \n\n\n \n\n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA  \n \n\n\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\n\t\t\tbe referred 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\nKUMARPAL\nNAGARDAS SHAH &amp; 2 \n\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSHARDABEN\nWD\/O RATIKANT KASTURCHAND SHAH &amp; 3 \n\n \n\n========================================= \nAppearance\n: \nMR PM BHATT for Petitioner(s) :\n1 - 3. \nRULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3. \nMR AMAR D MITHANI\nfor Respondent(s) : 1 - 4. \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 J.B.PARDIWALA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 08\/11\/2011 \n\n \n\n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>[1]\tBy<br \/>\nway of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,<br \/>\npetitioners No.1 and 2 &#8211; original plaintiffs and petitioner<br \/>\nNo.3 &#8211; witness examined on behalf of the original plaintiffs<br \/>\nhave challenged the order dated 13.05.2004 passed by the 2nd<br \/>\nJoint Civil Judge (S.D.),    Ahmedabad (Rural) below Ex.142 in<br \/>\nSpecial Civil Suit No.53 of 1999 whereby the application Ex.142<br \/>\npreferred by the petitioner No.3 in his capacity as a witness of the<br \/>\noriginal plaintiffs for production of the documents, after his<br \/>\nexamination-in-chief was over, came to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>[2]\tThe<br \/>\nbrief facts giving rise to this petition can be summarized as under :\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\npetitioners No.1 and 2 are the original plaintiffs who have filed<br \/>\nSpecial Civil Suit No.53 of 1999 in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.),<br \/>\nAhmedabad Rural for specific performance of the contract against the<br \/>\noriginal defendants. It appears that the petitioners No.1 and 2<br \/>\nexamined the petitioner No.3 as their witness. After<br \/>\nexamination-in-chief of petitioner No.3 as a witness of the original<br \/>\nplaintiffs came to an end. Subsequently, an application came to be<br \/>\npreferred Ex.142 by the petitioner No.3 in his capacity as witness<br \/>\nseeking permission to once again to enter the witness box and produce<br \/>\ncertain document which inadvertently he failed to adduce as evidence<br \/>\nduring the course of his examination-in-chief. It is pertinent to<br \/>\nnote that in the application Ex.142 it has been averred that such<br \/>\ndocuments which contained signature of the plaintiffs and the<br \/>\ncontents are also in the handwriting of the original plaintiffs was<br \/>\nin possession of the petitioner No.3 as witness, but inadvertently he<br \/>\nfailed to produce the same during the course of his<br \/>\nexamination-in-chief. Having realized this witness i.e. petitioner<br \/>\nNo.3 preferred an application Ex.142.\n<\/p>\n<p>[3]\tThis<br \/>\napplication Ex.142 was adjudicated by learned Civil Judge and after<br \/>\ntaking into consideration the objections in writing filed by the<br \/>\noriginal defendants i.e. original respondents herein, the learned<br \/>\nCivil Judge in exercise of his discretionary powers rejected the<br \/>\napplication. Learned Civil Judge in the facts and circumstances of<br \/>\nthe case refused to exercise its discretion in this regard after<br \/>\nassigning cogent reasons.\n<\/p>\n<p>[4]\tIt<br \/>\nwould be expedient at this stage to state that earlier there was a<br \/>\nprovision in the Civil Procedure Code in the form of Order 18, Rule<br \/>\n17-A permitting production of evidence not previously known or which<br \/>\ncould not be produced despite due diligent. Order 18, Rule 17-A came<br \/>\nto be omitted by the  Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) by Act 46<br \/>\nof 1999. Order 18, Rule 17-A was inserted by amendment in 1976 with a<br \/>\nview to give an opportunity to have party to adduce the evidence<br \/>\nunder the circumstances mentioned therein. By the Amendment Act,<br \/>\n2002, this sub rule has been deleted. It is quite evident that Rule<br \/>\n17-A has been deleted  with a view that unnecessarily applications<br \/>\nare not filed primary with a view to prolong the matter. However, I<br \/>\ndo not propose to say that deletion of Order 18, Rule 17-A<br \/>\ndisentitles  a party to produce  evidence at a later stage. If a<br \/>\nparty satisfies the Court that after exercise of due diligence that<br \/>\nevidence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced at the<br \/>\ntime the party was leading evidence, the Court may permit leading of<br \/>\nsuch evidence at latter stage. In this regard, it would be<br \/>\nappropriate to quote paragraph No.14 of Supreme Court ruling in the<br \/>\ncase of Salem Advocates Bar Associations Vs. Union of India reported<br \/>\nin AIR 2005 SC 3353(1) as under :-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;In<br \/>\nSalem Advocates Bar Association&#8217;s case, it has been clarified that on<br \/>\ndeletion of Order XVIII, Rule 17-A which provided for leading of<br \/>\nadditional evidence, the law existing before the introduction of the<br \/>\namendment, i.e. 1st July, 2002, would stand restored. The<br \/>\nRule was deleted by Amendment Act of 2002. Even before insertion of<br \/>\nOrder XVIII Rule 17-A, the Court had inbuilt power to permit parties<br \/>\nto produce evidence not known to them earlier or which could not be<br \/>\nproduced in spite of due diligence. Order XVIII Rule 17-A did not<br \/>\ncreate any new right but only clarified the position. Therefore,<br \/>\ndeletion of Order XVIII Rule 17-A does not disentitle production of<br \/>\nevidence at a later stage. On a party satisfying the Court that after<br \/>\nexercise of due diligence that evidence was not within his knowledge<br \/>\nor could not be produced at the time the party was leading evidence,<br \/>\nthe Court may permit leading of such evidence at a later stage on<br \/>\nsuch terms as may appear to be just.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>[5]<br \/>\nLearned counsel Mr.P. M. Bhatt appearing for the petitioners &#8211;<br \/>\noriginal plaintiffs has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court<br \/>\nin the case of Ashok Sharma Vs. Ram Adhar Sharma, reported in (2009)<br \/>\n11 SCC 47, in support of his contentions that the Civil Judge ought<br \/>\nto have allowed the application Ex.142 keeping in mind Order-16,<br \/>\nRule1-A of the Civil Procedure Code. I am afraid  this ruling of the<br \/>\nSupreme Court, would not be of any help to the petitioners as the<br \/>\nissue involved in this case is all together different.  In the case<br \/>\nbefore the Supreme Court, the trial Court refused the prayer of<br \/>\nproduction of the documents on a simple interpretation of the word<br \/>\n&#8220;production&#8221; as used in Order 16 Rule 1 of the Code<br \/>\nwhich, according to the trial court, would mean that the witness can<br \/>\nbe summoned to bring the record to prove the documents placed on<br \/>\nrecord by the parties to the suit. In the case before the Supreme<br \/>\nCourt, the document was not produced by the plaintiffs either along<br \/>\nwith the plaint or at the time of framing of the issues. The High<br \/>\nCourt permitted the document to be taken on record at the instance of<br \/>\nthe witnesses. In these facts Supreme Court held that Order 16 Rules<br \/>\n1 and 1-A of the Code, if read together, would clearly indicate that<br \/>\nit is open to a party to summon a witness to the court or even may,<br \/>\nwithout applying for summons, bring a witness to  give evidence or to<br \/>\nproduce documents. The Supreme Court clarified that since Rule 1-A is<br \/>\nsubject to the provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule  1,  all that can<br \/>\nbe contended is that before proceeding to examine any witness, who<br \/>\nmight have been brought by a party for the purpose, the leave of the<br \/>\ncourt may be necessary.\n<\/p>\n<p>[6]\tIn<br \/>\nthe present case, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 as original plaintiffs<br \/>\npreferred application before the learned Civil Judge praying that the<br \/>\npetitioner No.3 may be permitted to be examined as their witness and<br \/>\nthat application was allowed and accordingly petitioner No.3 in his<br \/>\ncapacity as a witness of the original plaintiffs stepped<br \/>\ninto the witness box. His examination-in-chief was recorded and after<br \/>\nexamination-in-chief was closed at a later stage, application Ex.142<br \/>\ncame to be preferred stating that he may be permitted once again to<br \/>\nenter the witness box to produce the documents which he could not<br \/>\nproduce when his examination-in-chief was in progress. Learned Civil<br \/>\nJudge found that the explanation was too lame and feeble and did not<br \/>\ndeem fit to exercise his discretion in favour of the petitioner No.3.\n<\/p>\n<p>[7]\tIt<br \/>\nis not the case of the petitioner No.3 that when he led the evidence,<br \/>\nthe evidence now sought to be produced, was not within his knowledge<br \/>\nand could not be produced despite due diligence. The reason for<br \/>\nnon-production of such evidence at the relevant time is that it could<br \/>\nnot be produced due to inadvertence. Inadvertence is a form of<br \/>\nnegligence, therefore, non-production of the evidence sought to be<br \/>\nnow produced, is attributable to negligence and failure to produce<br \/>\nsuch evidence because of inadvertence \/ negligence, is not a lawful<br \/>\nground to permit a party to lead additional evidence within the ambit<br \/>\nand scope of Rule 17A of Order 18 of the Code as it stood before<br \/>\namendment.\n<\/p>\n<p>[8]\tHaving<br \/>\nconsidered the entire matter threadbare, I am of the view that no<br \/>\njurisdictional error can be said to have been committed by the<br \/>\nlearned Civil Judge in rejecting the application Ex.142 warranting<br \/>\nany interference in this petition Article 227 of the Constitution of<br \/>\nIndia. In the above view of the matter, this petition is accordingly<br \/>\nrejected with no order as to costs. Rule is discharged.\n<\/p>\n<p>[9]\tIt<br \/>\nhas been brought to my notice that there are two civil suits in<br \/>\nprogress and which have been ordered to be consolidated. Special<br \/>\nCivil Suit No.53 of 1999 and Special Civil Suit No.978 of 1997, both<br \/>\nare now more than almost 13 years old,  I deem it fit and proper to<br \/>\ndirect the concerned Civil Court to take up both the civil suits for<br \/>\nhearing and dispose them of in accordance with law on or before 30th<br \/>\nApril 2012. It is also brought to my notice that the issues in both<br \/>\nthe suits  were already framed way back in the year 1999. It is<br \/>\nneedless to clarify that both the civil suits shall be decided by the<br \/>\nconcerned Court without being any influence by any finding recorded<br \/>\nin the order passed below Ex.142 dated  13.05.2004 passed in Special<br \/>\nCivil Suit No.53 of 1999.\n<\/p>\n<p>[<br \/>\n J.B.PARDIWALA, J. ]<\/p>\n<p>vijay<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court &#8211; 3 vs &#8211; 3 on 16 November, 2011 Author: J.B.Pardiwala, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/6382\/2004 7\/ 7 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6382 of 2004 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA ========================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may [&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-15872","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>- 3 vs - 3 on 16 November, 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\/3-vs-3-on-16-november-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"- 3 vs - 3 on 16 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/3-vs-3-on-16-november-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=\"2011-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-05T23:16:38+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/3-vs-3-on-16-november-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/3-vs-3-on-16-november-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"&#8211; 3 vs &#8211; 3 on 16 November, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-05T23:16:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/3-vs-3-on-16-november-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1511,\"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\\\/3-vs-3-on-16-november-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/3-vs-3-on-16-november-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/3-vs-3-on-16-november-2011\",\"name\":\"- 3 vs - 3 on 16 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-05T23:16:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/3-vs-3-on-16-november-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/3-vs-3-on-16-november-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/3-vs-3-on-16-november-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"&#8211; 3 vs &#8211; 3 on 16 November, 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":"- 3 vs - 3 on 16 November, 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\/3-vs-3-on-16-november-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"- 3 vs - 3 on 16 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/3-vs-3-on-16-november-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-05T23:16:38+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/3-vs-3-on-16-november-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/3-vs-3-on-16-november-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"&#8211; 3 vs &#8211; 3 on 16 November, 2011","datePublished":"2011-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-05T23:16:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/3-vs-3-on-16-november-2011"},"wordCount":1511,"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\/3-vs-3-on-16-november-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/3-vs-3-on-16-november-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/3-vs-3-on-16-november-2011","name":"- 3 vs - 3 on 16 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-05T23:16:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/3-vs-3-on-16-november-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/3-vs-3-on-16-november-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/3-vs-3-on-16-november-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"&#8211; 3 vs &#8211; 3 on 16 November, 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\/15872","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=15872"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15872\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15872"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15872"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15872"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}