{"id":163690,"date":"2007-10-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-10-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-prakash-gupta-vs-rajiv-kumar-gupta-ors-on-3-october-2007"},"modified":"2018-10-29T03:29:27","modified_gmt":"2018-10-28T21:59:27","slug":"ram-prakash-gupta-vs-rajiv-kumar-gupta-ors-on-3-october-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-prakash-gupta-vs-rajiv-kumar-gupta-ors-on-3-october-2007","title":{"rendered":"Ram Prakash Gupta vs Rajiv Kumar Gupta & Ors on 3 October, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ram Prakash Gupta vs Rajiv Kumar Gupta & Ors on 3 October, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: P Sathasivam<\/div>\n
Bench: Tarun Chatterjee, P. Sathasivam<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  4626 of 2007\n\nPETITIONER:\nRam Prakash Gupta\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRajiv Kumar Gupta & Ors\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 03\/10\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nTarun Chatterjee & P. Sathasivam\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT
\n(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8781 OF 2006)<\/p>\n
P. Sathasivam, J.\n<\/p>\n
1)\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2)\tThis appeal is directed against the judgment dated
\n27.4.2006 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Regular
\nFirst Appeal No. 188 of 2006 whereby the High Court
\ndismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein.  The
\nrespondents are the sons of the appellant’s elder brother
\nwho died in the year 1986.\n<\/p>\n
3)\tThe brief facts are as under:\n<\/p>\n
In the year 1957, since the appellant was a handicapped
\nperson, the father of the appellant purchased a piece of land
\nin the name of and for the benefit of the appellant herein,
\nwho was minor at that time by way of registered sale deed
\ndated 02.09.1957.  The father of the appellant died in the
\nyear 1965 and at the time of his death, the plot underneath
\nthe house in question was lying vacant.  The appellant was
\nactively engaged in the business, therefore, in the year 1966
\nhe raised a full fledged 3 storey house on the said plot with
\nhis funds.  Moreover, a loan of Rs.30,000\/- was also taken
\nfrom the Life Insurance Corporation by the appellant for
\nconstruction of the house and later on it was repaid.  After
\nconstructing the house,    the first floor of the building was
\nlet out to one Aseema Architect by the appellant in the year
\n1969.  The appellant and his family and the respondents’
\nfather and his family were living together in House No.107,
\nChawri Bazar, Delhi.  Since relations between the brothers
\nwere cordial, on request of the respondents’ father, the
\nappellant allowed him to use the second floor of the house
\nas a licensee.  In the year 1974, respondents’ father played
\na fraud and filed two suits in the name of his sons
\nrespondents herein, bearing Suit No.183 of 1974 and 133 of
\n1974 for declaration and possession of the ground\/first
\nfloor.  There is no dispute of ownership of the appellant as
\nfar as the second and third floors of the house are
\nconcerned.  In September 1986, after the death of their
\nfather, the respondents claimed the possession of the first
\nfloor of the building on the basis that they had obtained
\nsome decree from the Court, the particulars of which were
\nnot disclosed.  In spite of best efforts, the appellant could
\nnot obtain the details of the case, therefore, no action could
\nbe taken.  Aseema Architect, who was paying rent to the
\nappellant, stopped payment of rent and in the year 1989,
\nfiled interpleader suit No. 424 of 1989 alleging therein that
\nthere is a bona fide dispute about the person(s) to whom the
\nrent is payable.  In that suit, the details of the decree
\nobtained fraudently in the year 1976 was disclosed.  On
\n7.2.1990, the appellant herein filed Suit No. 378 of 1993
\nbefore the Additional Dist. Judge, Delhi praying for the
\nfollowing reliefs:\n<\/p>\n
a)\tdeclare plaintiff (appellant herein) as absolute and
\nexclusive owner of H.No.8, Nizamuddin Basti, N.D.
\nand to declare the decrees dated 5.2.1976 in Suit
\nNo.183\/74  and dated 19.1.1976 in Suit No.
\n133\/74 as null and void.\n<\/p>\n
b)\tGrant decree for possession of 2nd floor of H.No.8,
\nNizamuddin Basti, New Delhi in favour of the
\nappellant herein.\n<\/p>\n
Written statement was filed by the respondents herein in
\nwhich the respondents had taken the plea that the appellant
\nappeared in the suits and as such he had full knowledge of the
\ncase.  The following issues were framed by the trial Court:
\n(1)\tWhether the suit is barred by limitation?
\n(2)\tWhether Plaintiff is entitled for a decree of
\ndeclaration that the plaintiff is absolute and
\nexclusive owner of the suit property in question?
\n(3)\tWhether plaintiff is entitled for a decree of
\ndeclaration declaring the decree dated 5.2.1976 in
\nSuit No. 183\/74 as null and void?\n<\/p>\n
(4)\tWhether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of
\npossession as prayed for?\n<\/p>\n
Evidence by way of affidavit of the plaintiff (appellant herein)
\nwas filed on which cross examination of the appellant was
\nclosed.  In the cross-examination, no question on limitation
\nwas asked by the respondents.  It is at this stage, the
\nrespondent moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d)
\nC.P.C. for rejection of the plaint on the ground of suit being
\nbarred by law of limitation.  Reply to the said application was
\nfiled.  The trial Court dismissed the suit of the appellant
\nherein merely on the basis of the limitation holding that since
\npartial rejection of the plaint is not permitted in law, the entire
\nplaint has to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
4)\tAggrieved by the order of the trial Court, the appellant
\npreferred an appeal before the High Court of Delhi.  The High
\nCourt dismissed the appeal recording that since there cannot
\nbe a partial rejection of suit, hence the entire suit has to be
\ndismissed.  Being aggrieved by the said order, the present
\nappeal has been filed by the appellant before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
5)\tWe have heard Mr. Vinay Garg, learned counsel
\nappearing for the appellant and Ms. Shalini Kapoor, learned
\ncounsel appearing for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
6)\tLearned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted
\nthat the approach of the High Court is against the settled
\nprinciple of law that when there are numerous cause of action
\njoined in one claim, it is not permissible to the Court to reject
\nthe claim under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. if it is possible to
\ngive a decree for some of the cause of action.  He also
\nsubmitted that the trial Court entertained the application of
\nthe respondents herein under Order VII Rule 11(d) C.P.C. filed
\nafter 15 years of institution of the suit that too after filing of
\nwritten statement, framing of issues, cross-examination of the
\nplaintiff-appellant herein and resultantly permitted the
\nrespondents to circumvent the case to avoid decision on the
\nspecific issue of limitation, framed as one of the issues by the
\nCourt, on the basis of evidence produced on record.  He
\nfurther submitted that the application has been allowed by
\nreading one para in isolation and ignoring other relevant paras
\nof the plaint which specifically deal with the date of knowledge
\nof the fraudulent decree obtained by the respondent on the
\nbasis of which ownership rights in the property were claimed.
\nLearned counsel submitted that the point of limitation being a
\nmixed question of law and fact should have been decided after
\nappreciation of evidence already on record and not summarily
\nunder Order VII Rule 11 CPC.\n<\/p>\n
7)\tOn the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
\nrespondents submitted that inasmuch as the trial Court and
\nthe High Court, on proper verification of the plaint averments
\nand finding that there is no material for delay in filing the suit,
\nrightly rejected the plaint and allowed the application prayed
\nfor dismissal of the above appeal.\n<\/p>\n
8)\tWe have perused the relevant materials and considered
\nthe rival contentions.\n<\/p>\n
9)\tThe only question to be considered in this appeal is
\nwhether the defendants\/respondents herein made out a case
\nfor rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the
\nC.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
10)\tAs per Order VII Rule 11, the plaint is liable to be
\nrejected in the following cases:\n<\/p>\n
“(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;\n<\/p>\n
(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff,
\non being required by the Court to correct the valuation
\nwithin a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so;\n<\/p>\n
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint
\nis written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the
\nplaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the
\nrequisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court,
\nfails to do so;\n<\/p>\n
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to
\nbe barred by any law:\n<\/p>\n
(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;\n<\/p>\n
(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of
\nrule 9;”\n<\/p>\n
11)\tIn Saleem Bhai and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and
\nOrs.,<\/a> (2003) 1 SCC 557 it was held with reference to Order VII
\nRule 11 of the Code that the relevant facts which need to be
\nlooked into for deciding an application thereunder are the
\naverments in the plaint. The trial court can exercise the power
\nat any stage of the suit – before registering the plaint or after
\nissuing summons to the defendant at any time before the
\nconclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an
\napplication under Clauses (a) and (d) of Order VII Rule 11 of
\nthe Code, the averments in the plaint are the germane: the
\npleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would
\nbe wholly irrelevant at that stage.\n<\/p>\n
12)\tIn I.T.C. Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal
\nand Ors.,<\/a> (1998) 2 SCC 70, it was held that the basic question
\nto be decided while dealing with an application filed under
\nOrder VII Rule 11 of the Code is whether a real cause of action
\nhas been set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has
\nbeen stated with a view to get out of Order VII Rule 11 of the
\nCode.\n<\/p>\n
13) The trial Court must remember that if on a meaningful
\nand not formal reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious
\nand meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to
\nsue, it should exercise the power under Order VII Rule 11 of
\nthe Code taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein
\nis fulfilled. If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause
\nof action, it has to be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by
\nexamining the party searchingly under Order X of the Code.
\n(See T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal and Anr.<\/a> (1977) 4
\nSCC 467).\n<\/p>\n
14)\tIt is trite law that not any particular plea has to be
\nconsidered, and the whole plaint has to be read. As was
\nobserved by this Court in Roop Lal Sathi v. Nachhattar
\nSingh Gill,<\/a> (1982) 3 SCC 487 only a part of the plaint cannot
\nbe rejected and if no cause of action is disclosed, the plaint as
\na whole must be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
15)\tIn Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh Property<\/a>
\n(1998) 7 SCC 184,  it was observed that the averments in the
\nplaint as a whole have to be seen to find out whether clause (d)
\nof Rule 11 of Order VII was applicable.\n<\/p>\n
16)\tIn Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and Ors. Vs. Assistant
\nCharity Commissioner and Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 137,   this
\nCourt held thus:\n<\/p>\n
“15. There cannot be any compartmentalization,
\ndissection, segregation and inversions of the language of
\nvarious paragraphs in the plaint. If such a course is
\nadopted it would run counter to the cardinal canon of
\ninterpretation according to which a pleading has to be
\nread as a whole to ascertain its true import. It is not
\npermissible to cull out a sentence or a passage and to
\nread it out of the context in isolation. Although it is the
\nsubstance and not merely the form that has to be
\nlooked into, the pleading has to be construed as it
\nstands without addition or subtraction or words or
\nchange of its apparent grammatical sense. The intention
\nof the party concerned is to be gathered primarily from
\nthe tenor and terms of his pleadings taken as a whole.
\nAt the same time it should be borne in mind that no
\npedantic approach should be adopted to defeat justice
\non hair-splitting technicalities.”\n<\/p>\n
17)\tFor our purpose, clause (d) is relevant.  It makes it clear
\nthat if the plaint does not contain necessary averments
\nrelating to limitation, the same is liable to be rejected.  For the
\nsaid purpose, it is the duty of the person who files such an
\napplication to satisfy the Court that the plaint does not
\ndisclose how the same is in time.  In order to answer the said
\nquestion, it is incumbent on the part of the Court to verify the
\nentire plaint.  Order VII Rule 12 mandates where a plaint is
\nrejected, the Court has to record the order to that effect with
\nthe reasons for such order.  Inasmuch as the learned trial
\nJudge rejected the plaint only on the ground of limitation, it is
\nuseful to refer the averments relating to the same.  Learned
\ncounsel appearing for the appellant, by taking us through the
\nentire plaint, submitted that inasmuch as sufficient materials
\nare available in the plaint, it is proper on the part of the trial
\nCourt to decide the suit on merits and not justified in rejecting
\nthe plaint that too after the evidence of the plaintiff.  In the
\nlight of the assertion of the counsel for the appellant, we
\ncarefully verified the plaint averments.  In paragraph 5, the
\nappellant\/plaintiff has specifically stated that he is a
\nhandicapped person from the beginning and it is difficult for
\nhim to move about freely.  The following averments in the
\nplaint are relevant to answer the point determined in this
\nappeal:\n<\/p>\n
“a)\tThat without any intimation to the Plaintiff, said
\nRajeev Kumar Gupta got decreed the said suit.  It seems that
\nthe said Rajeev Kumar Gupta in collusion with his father
\nShri Inder Prakash Gupta produced some-one-else under the
\npretext of Shri Ram Prakash Gupta, the present Plaintiff in
\nthe court and got the said decree in his favour on the said
\nfalse pretext by playing a fraud upon the Plaintiff as well as
\nupon the court.  The Plaintiff never appeared in the above
\nsaid cases before the High Court nor ever made any
\nstatement to the effect that the suit of the Plaintiff
\nmay\/might be decreed and as such the judgment and decree
\ndated 05.02.1976 passed in the above said suit No. 183\/74
\nentitled as Rajeev Kumar vs. Ram Prakash Gupta is totally
\nfalse, baseless, nullity and void in the eyes of law and is not
\nat all binding upon the Plaintiff and the same has been
\nprocured by fraud and mis-representation as submitted
\nabove.”\n<\/p>\n
“b)\tThat the Plaintiff came to know for the first time about
\nthe passing of the above said decree in favour of said Rajeev
\nKumar Gupta by the High Court of Delhi, in the above said
\nsuit No. 183\/74 in the month of October, 1986.  It is
\nsubmitted that Shri Inder Prakash Gupta, the elder brother
\nof the Plaintiff died at Delhi in the month of September, 1986
\nand after his death Shri Rajeev Kumar Gupta asked the
\nPlaintiff to give first floor portion of the above building No. 8,
\nNizamuddin Basti to them and alleged that there was a High
\nCourt judgment in their favour.  However, no particulars of
\nthe said judgment were given at that time by any of the
\nDefendants, and therefore, the Plaintiff could not take any
\naction at that time.”\n<\/p>\n
“c)\tThat the said tenant M\/s Aseema Architect also
\nstopped payment of rent from the year 1985 and perhaps on
\nthe instructions or at the instance of said Indra Prakash
\nGupta, the elder brother of the Plaintiff, he deposited the
\nrent from July, 1985 to March, 1986 in the court of Rent
\nController, Delhi.  However, after the death of Shri Inder
\nPrakash Gupta, the above said tenant refused to pay the
\nrent and ultimately he filed a inter-pleader suit being suit
\nNo. 424\/89 entitled as Aseema Architect versus Ram
\nPrakash alleging therein that there is a bonafide dispute
\nabout the person\/s to whom the rent is payable.  In fact, the
\nsaid suit was and is not maintainable because admittedly
\nthe said tenant took the above said premises from the
\nPlaintiff and he is stopped from denying the title of the
\nPlaintiff under section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act and for
\nother reasons also.”\n<\/p>\n
“d)\tThat in any case, it is submitted that as on one of the
\ndates, the Plaintiff could not appear because of his illness,
\nthe learned trial Court proceeded ex-parte and decreed the
\nsuit ex-parte in favour of said Shri Rajeev Kumar Gupta.  It
\nis submitted that the full details of the above said judgment
\nwere given by the said Rajeev Kumar in the said court as the
\ncopy of the said judgment of the High Court was filed therein
\nand thereafter taking the details from the same, the High
\nCourt’s file was inspected and the malafide motives and
\ndesigns of the Defendants came to light and, therefore, the
\npresent suit is being filed at the earliest possible challenging
\nthe said judgment and the decree of the High Court of
\nDelhi.”\n<\/p>\n
18)\tAs observed earlier, before passing an order in an
\napplication filed for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule
\n11(d), it is but proper to verify the entire plaint averments.
\nThe abovementioned materials clearly show that the decree
\npassed in Suit No. 183 of 1974 came to the knowledge of the
\nplaintiff in the year 1986, when Suit No.424 of 1989 titled
\nAssema Architect vs. Ram Prakash was filed in which a
\ncopy of the earlier decree was placed on record and thereafter
\nhe took steps at the earliest and filed the suit for declaration
\nand in alternative for possession.  It is not in dispute that as
\nper Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, a suit ought to have
\nbeen filed within a period of three years from the date of the
\nknowledge.  The knowledge mentioned in the plaint cannot be
\ntermed as inadequate and incomplete as observed by the High
\nCourt.  While deciding the application under Order VII Rule
\n11, few lines or passage should not be read in isolation and
\nthe pleadings have to be read as a whole to ascertain its true
\nimport.  We are of the view that both the trial Court as well as
\nthe High Court failed to advert to the relevant averments as
\nstated in the plaint.\n<\/p>\n
19)\tIt is also relevant to mention that after filing of the
\nwritten statement, framing of the issues including on
\nlimitation, evidence was led, plaintiff was cross-examined,
\nthereafter before conclusion of the trial, the application under
\nOrder VII Rule 11 was filed for rejection of the plaint.  It is also
\npertinent to mention that there was not even a suggestion to
\nthe plaintiff\/appellant to the effect that the suit filed by him is
\nbarred by limitation.\n<\/p>\n
20)   On going through the entire plaint averments, we are of
\nthe view that the trial Court has committed an error in
\nrejecting the same at the belated stage that too without
\nadverting to all the materials which are available in the plaint.
\nThe High Court has also committed the same error in
\naffirming the order of the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
21)  In the light of our above discussion, we set aside the order
\nof the trial Court dated 20.2.2006 passed by the Civil Judge,
\nDelhi in Suit No. 318\/2003 and the judgment dated 27.4.2006
\npassed by the High Court of Delhi in R.F.A. No. 188 of 2006.
\nIn the result, the civil appeal is allowed and the Civil Judge is
\ndirected to restore the suit to its original file and dispose of the
\nsame on merits preferably within a period of six months from
\nthe date of receipt of the copy of this judgment.  It is made
\nclear that except on the question of limitation, we have not
\ngone into the merits of the claim made by both parties.  No
\ncosts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ram Prakash Gupta vs Rajiv Kumar Gupta & Ors on 3 October, 2007 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: Tarun Chatterjee, P. Sathasivam CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4626 of 2007 PETITIONER: Ram Prakash Gupta RESPONDENT: Rajiv Kumar Gupta & Ors DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03\/10\/2007 BENCH: Tarun Chatterjee & P. Sathasivam JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT (Arising […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-163690","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRam Prakash Gupta vs Rajiv Kumar Gupta & Ors on 3 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-prakash-gupta-vs-rajiv-kumar-gupta-ors-on-3-october-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ram Prakash Gupta vs Rajiv Kumar Gupta & Ors on 3 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-prakash-gupta-vs-rajiv-kumar-gupta-ors-on-3-october-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-10-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-28T21:59:27+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-prakash-gupta-vs-rajiv-kumar-gupta-ors-on-3-october-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-prakash-gupta-vs-rajiv-kumar-gupta-ors-on-3-october-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ram Prakash Gupta vs Rajiv Kumar Gupta & Ors on 3 October, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-28T21:59:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-prakash-gupta-vs-rajiv-kumar-gupta-ors-on-3-october-2007\"},\"wordCount\":3176,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-prakash-gupta-vs-rajiv-kumar-gupta-ors-on-3-october-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-prakash-gupta-vs-rajiv-kumar-gupta-ors-on-3-october-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-prakash-gupta-vs-rajiv-kumar-gupta-ors-on-3-october-2007\",\"name\":\"Ram Prakash Gupta vs Rajiv Kumar Gupta & Ors on 3 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-28T21:59:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-prakash-gupta-vs-rajiv-kumar-gupta-ors-on-3-october-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-prakash-gupta-vs-rajiv-kumar-gupta-ors-on-3-october-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-prakash-gupta-vs-rajiv-kumar-gupta-ors-on-3-october-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ram Prakash Gupta vs Rajiv Kumar Gupta & Ors on 3 October, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ram Prakash Gupta vs Rajiv Kumar Gupta & Ors on 3 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-prakash-gupta-vs-rajiv-kumar-gupta-ors-on-3-october-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ram Prakash Gupta vs Rajiv Kumar Gupta & Ors on 3 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-prakash-gupta-vs-rajiv-kumar-gupta-ors-on-3-october-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-10-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-28T21:59:27+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-prakash-gupta-vs-rajiv-kumar-gupta-ors-on-3-october-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-prakash-gupta-vs-rajiv-kumar-gupta-ors-on-3-october-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ram Prakash Gupta vs Rajiv Kumar Gupta & Ors on 3 October, 2007","datePublished":"2007-10-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-28T21:59:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-prakash-gupta-vs-rajiv-kumar-gupta-ors-on-3-october-2007"},"wordCount":3176,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-prakash-gupta-vs-rajiv-kumar-gupta-ors-on-3-october-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-prakash-gupta-vs-rajiv-kumar-gupta-ors-on-3-october-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-prakash-gupta-vs-rajiv-kumar-gupta-ors-on-3-october-2007","name":"Ram Prakash Gupta vs Rajiv Kumar Gupta & Ors on 3 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-10-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-28T21:59:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-prakash-gupta-vs-rajiv-kumar-gupta-ors-on-3-october-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-prakash-gupta-vs-rajiv-kumar-gupta-ors-on-3-october-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-prakash-gupta-vs-rajiv-kumar-gupta-ors-on-3-october-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ram Prakash Gupta vs Rajiv Kumar Gupta & Ors on 3 October, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/163690","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=163690"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/163690\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=163690"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=163690"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=163690"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}