{"id":166275,"date":"2008-12-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-mani-vs-t-ganesan-on-16-december-2008"},"modified":"2014-05-30T19:24:57","modified_gmt":"2014-05-30T13:54:57","slug":"v-mani-vs-t-ganesan-on-16-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-mani-vs-t-ganesan-on-16-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"V. Mani vs T. Ganesan on 16 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">V. Mani vs T. Ganesan on 16 December, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED : 16\/12\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU\n\nC.R.P. (NPD) (MD) No.1103 of 2006\nand\nM.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2006\n\nV. Mani\t\t\t\t\t...  Petitioner\n\t\t\nVs.\n\nT. Ganesan\t\t\t\t\t...  Respondent\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\n\tCivil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of\nIndia against the fair and decretal order dated 03.08.2006 made in E.A. No.52 of\n2006 in E.A. No.14 of 2006 in E.P. No.8 of 2005 on the file of the District\nMunsif-Cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Vedasandur.\n\n!For Petitioner   ... Mr.M.Saravanan\n^For Respondents  ... Ms.J.Padmavathi Devi\n\t\t\t\t\t\t* * *\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe respondent is plaintiff in O.S. No. 138 of 1982 on the file of the<br \/>\nDistrict Munsif Court, Dindigul.  He filed the suit for specific performance of<br \/>\ncontract against the petitioner&#8217;s father by name Velan and obtained decree.  The<br \/>\nrespondent filed E.P. No.8 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif-Cum-<br \/>\nJudicial Magistrate Court, Vedasandur for delivery of the property in pursuance<br \/>\nof the decree passed in the suit.  Pending the enquiry in the execution<br \/>\nproceedings, this petitioner, son of the defendant Velan, filed an application<br \/>\nin E.A. No.14 of 2006 under Order 21, Rules 97, 99 and 101 C.P.C. praying the<br \/>\nCourt to declare that the decree passed in O.S. No.138 of 1982 is null and void,<br \/>\nthe execution proceedings taken up by the plaintiff in E.P. No.6 of 2001 for<br \/>\nexecution of sale deed against his father, is void ab initio, to declare that<br \/>\nthe properties belong to him and also for a permanent injunction restraining the<br \/>\nplaintiff from interfering with his enjoyment of the properties mentioned in<br \/>\nO.S. No.138 of 1982.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.\tWhen the hearing in E.A. No.14 of 2006 was posted on 16.03.2006, the<br \/>\nplaintiff who had to appear, however, he did not appear and hence, the Court set<br \/>\nhim ex parte and the second respondent in the E.P., the defendant Velan,<br \/>\nexpressed that the petition in E.A. No.14 of 2006 may be allowed and hence, the<br \/>\nsaid E.A. was allowed on 16.03.2006.  Thereafter, the respondent\/plaintiff filed<br \/>\nan application in E.A. No.52 of 2006 to set aside the ex parte decree passed on<br \/>\nhim on 16.03.2006.  The said petition was filed on 12.06.2006.  In spite of<br \/>\nresistance by the petitioner herein, the above-said petition was allowed.<br \/>\nChallenging the order passed by the executing Court setting aside the ex parte<br \/>\norder against this respondent, the petitioner is before this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.\tIn the affidavit, the respondent herein has affirmed that on<br \/>\n16.03.2006, E.A. No.14 of 2006 was posted for hearing, for which he had to<br \/>\nappear but he was unable to attend the Court since he was affected by Typhoidal<br \/>\nFever, that on the later date, he came to the Court and enquired the Court<br \/>\nstaff, informed him that he was set ex parte on 16.03.2006 and that his absence<br \/>\nwas neither wilful nor wanton and it was by act of God.  Hence, it is prayed<br \/>\nthat the ex parte order may be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.\tIn the counter filed by this petitioner before the executing Court,<br \/>\nit is stated that the allegations found in the affidavit are incorrect and the<br \/>\npetition is not maintainable in law and on fact and that it is hopelessly barred<br \/>\nby Limitation and entertaining the petition itself was against law.  It is<br \/>\nfurther stated that Section 5 of Limitation Act will not apply for application<br \/>\nunder Order 21, Rule 106 of C.P.C.  Hence, the petition has to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.\tThe learned District Munsif-Cum-Judicial Magistrate, allowed the<br \/>\napplication setting aside the ex parte order passed against this respondent by<br \/>\nobserving that this respondent&#8217;s rights would prejudiced in view of the decree,<br \/>\nhe obtained in O.S. No.138 of 1982.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6.\tThe learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.R.Subramanian, would<br \/>\nsubmit that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not at all applicable to the<br \/>\nexecution proceedings and that the petitioner having failed to adduce adequate<br \/>\nreasons in the affidavit for condoning the delay and not mentioned about the<br \/>\ndate in which the ex parte orders was passed, the petition is liable to be<br \/>\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7.\tConversely, the learned counsel for the respondent Ms. J.Padmavathi<br \/>\nDevi, would contend that there is no error or infirmity in the order passed by<br \/>\nthe Court below and that the plaintiff, namely, this respondent, should be<br \/>\nallowed to enjoy the fruits of the decree passed in the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8.\tIt is well settled that the petition under Section 5 of the<br \/>\nLimitation Act is not at all maintainable in the execution proceedings.  Only<br \/>\none exemption is included in Order 21, Rule 106 (3), that is if an application<br \/>\nunder sub-rule 1 to Order 21, is made within thirty days from the date of the<br \/>\norder, or where, in the case of an ex parte order, the notice was not duly<br \/>\nserved, within thirty days from the date when the applicant had knowledge of the<br \/>\norder then he can file an application.  The provision is categorical and<br \/>\ndefinite in explaining that any application for setting aside the ex parte order<br \/>\nin any stage of the execution proceedings shall be filed within thirty days from<br \/>\nthe date of the ex parte order and if the applicant was not served with the<br \/>\nnotice in the execution proceedings and thereby he was prevented from appearing<br \/>\nbefore the Court for the hearing, then he is permitted to file such application,<br \/>\nhowever, within thirty days from the date of his knowledge.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9.\tIn order to satisfy the above said statutory requirement, the<br \/>\napplicant has to strictly establish that the notice was not served upon him in<br \/>\nthe execution proceedings and that he had knowledge only on a date<br \/>\nwithin thirty days before the date of filing of the application to set aside the<br \/>\nex parte order.  If such explanation or allegation is not available in the<br \/>\naffidavit, then the Court can reject the request of the applicant.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10.\tAdverting to the facts of the present case, in the affidavit, the<br \/>\npetitioner has mentioned only that he was unable to attend the Court on<br \/>\n16.03.2006.  He has neither alleged that he did not receive the summons in the<br \/>\nE.A. No.14 of 2006 nor he had knowledge about the hearing date only on a<br \/>\nparticular date and from that date within thirty days he filed this application.<br \/>\nIn the absence of the explanations or material particulars, in order to satisfy<br \/>\nthe statutory requirement, it has to be held that the petition is not<br \/>\nsustainable.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11.\tThe learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his<br \/>\ncontention, placed much reliance upon the decision of the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court<br \/>\nof India reported in (2005) 7 SCC 300, Damodaran Pillai and others Vs. South<br \/>\nIndian Bank Ltd., wherein Their Lordships have held that the applicant having<br \/>\nbeen aware of the proceedings, he being the petitioner in the application for<br \/>\nrestoration of  execution petition, cannot be permitted to say that he had no<br \/>\nknowledge about the passing of dismissal order and that he had knowledge only on<br \/>\na date and within thirty days from the date he filed an application for<br \/>\nrestoration.  The operative portion of the decision goes thus:<br \/>\n\t&#8220;11. The learned Judge, however, while arriving at the said finding failed<br \/>\nand\/or neglected to consider the effect of sub-rule (3) of Rule 106.  A bare<br \/>\nperusal of the aforementioned rule will clearly go to show that when an<br \/>\napplication is dismissed for default in terms of sub-rule (2) of Rule 105, the<br \/>\nstarting point of limitation for filing of a restoration application would be<br \/>\nthe date of the order and not the knowledge thereabout.  As the applicant is<br \/>\nrepresented in the proceeding through his advocate, his knowledge of the order<br \/>\nis presumed.  The starting point of limitation being knowledge about the<br \/>\ndisposal of the execution petition would arise only in a case where an ex parte<br \/>\norder was passed and that too without proper notice upon the judgment debtor and<br \/>\nnot otherwise.  Thus, if an order has been passed dismissing an application for<br \/>\ndefault under sub-rule (2) of Rule 105, the application for restoration thereof<br \/>\nmust be filed only within a period of thirty days from the date of the said<br \/>\norder and not thereafter.  In that view of the matter, the date when the decree-<br \/>\nholder acquired the knowledge of the order of dismissal of the execution<br \/>\npetition was, therefore, wholly irrelevant.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12.\tHe has also garnered support from the Division Bench decision of<br \/>\nthis Court in 1989 1 LW 178, N.M.Natarajan Vs. Deivayanai Ammal and others, in<br \/>\nwhich the learned Judges have observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is not applicable to a petition filed<br \/>\nfor setting aside the orders passed ex parte under R.106 of O.21, C.P.C. and the<br \/>\nprovision contained in sub-R.(4) of R.105 (Madras Amendment) is no longer in<br \/>\nforce.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13.\tThe above-said observation rendered in the case afore-mentioned is<br \/>\nsquarely applicable to the matter in issue.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14.\tFollowing the above said decision, in a subsequent decision in 2003<br \/>\n(4) CTC 225, M.Ponnupandian Vs. Selvabakiyam and others, this Court has taken an<br \/>\nidentical view that there is no circumstance to take a different view in this<br \/>\nmatter.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15.\t The learned counsel for the petitioner cited 2001-2-L.W. 113, Deep<br \/>\nChand and Others Vs. Mohan Lal, pronounced by the Supreme Court, in which Their<br \/>\nLordships have dealt with the powers of the executing Court in the matter of<br \/>\nexecuting a decree passed in a suit for specific performance.  She also placed<br \/>\nreliance upon a decision of this Court reported in 1997-1-L.W.353, Bank of<br \/>\nMadurai Ltd., Madurai by its Branch Manager Vs. M.Sundara Mahalingam, wherein<br \/>\nthe learned Judge has discussed about Article 136, Schedule-I of Limitation Act<br \/>\nand the maintainability of the E.P. before expiry of 12 years.  The above-said<br \/>\ntwo decisions cited by the learned counsel for the respondent are not relevant<br \/>\nto the subject matter before this Court presently.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t16.\tIn view of the settled position of law, there is no option except to<br \/>\nhold that the order passed by the executing Court, challenged herein is perverse<br \/>\nand legally infirm.  It is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set<br \/>\naside.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t17.\tIn fine, the Civil Revision Petition deserves to be allowed.  The<br \/>\nrespondent is at liberty to move the revision in the suit properties by any mode<br \/>\nknown to law.\n<\/p>\n<p>srm\/arr<\/p>\n<p>To<br \/>\nThe District Munsif-Cum-Judicial<br \/>\n Magistrate Court,<br \/>\nVedasandur.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court V. Mani vs T. Ganesan on 16 December, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 16\/12\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU C.R.P. (NPD) (MD) No.1103 of 2006 and M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2006 V. Mani &#8230; Petitioner Vs. T. Ganesan &#8230; Respondent Civil Revision Petition filed under [&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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-166275","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>V. Mani vs T. Ganesan on 16 December, 2008 - 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\/v-mani-vs-t-ganesan-on-16-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"V. Mani vs T. Ganesan on 16 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-mani-vs-t-ganesan-on-16-december-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-05-30T13:54:57+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\\\/v-mani-vs-t-ganesan-on-16-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-mani-vs-t-ganesan-on-16-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"V. Mani vs T. Ganesan on 16 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-30T13:54:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-mani-vs-t-ganesan-on-16-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1615,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-mani-vs-t-ganesan-on-16-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-mani-vs-t-ganesan-on-16-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-mani-vs-t-ganesan-on-16-december-2008\",\"name\":\"V. Mani vs T. Ganesan on 16 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-30T13:54:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-mani-vs-t-ganesan-on-16-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-mani-vs-t-ganesan-on-16-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-mani-vs-t-ganesan-on-16-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"V. Mani vs T. Ganesan on 16 December, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"V. Mani vs T. Ganesan on 16 December, 2008 - 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\/v-mani-vs-t-ganesan-on-16-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"V. Mani vs T. Ganesan on 16 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-mani-vs-t-ganesan-on-16-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-05-30T13:54:57+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\/v-mani-vs-t-ganesan-on-16-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-mani-vs-t-ganesan-on-16-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"V. Mani vs T. Ganesan on 16 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-30T13:54:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-mani-vs-t-ganesan-on-16-december-2008"},"wordCount":1615,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-mani-vs-t-ganesan-on-16-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-mani-vs-t-ganesan-on-16-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-mani-vs-t-ganesan-on-16-december-2008","name":"V. Mani vs T. Ganesan on 16 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-30T13:54:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-mani-vs-t-ganesan-on-16-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-mani-vs-t-ganesan-on-16-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-mani-vs-t-ganesan-on-16-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"V. Mani vs T. Ganesan on 16 December, 2008"}]},{"@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\/166275","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=166275"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/166275\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=166275"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=166275"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=166275"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}