{"id":166637,"date":"2007-04-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-04-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-perumal-raj-vs-b-rajendran-on-10-april-2007"},"modified":"2014-12-31T13:27:52","modified_gmt":"2014-12-31T07:57:52","slug":"a-perumal-raj-vs-b-rajendran-on-10-april-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-perumal-raj-vs-b-rajendran-on-10-april-2007","title":{"rendered":"A. Perumal Raj vs B. Rajendran on 10 April, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">A. Perumal Raj vs B. Rajendran on 10 April, 2007<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE  MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 10\/04\/2007\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU\n\nCRP.(PD) (MD) No.719 of 2005\nand\nC.M.P.(MD) No.5575 of 2005\n\nA. Perumal Raj\t\t... Petitioner\n\t\t\t\nVs\n\nB. Rajendran\t\t... Respondent\n\t\t\n\nPrayer\n\nCivil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the\nConstitution of India to set aside the order dated 08.04.2005 made in I.A.No.954\nof 2004 in O.S.No.88 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif, Aruppukottai.\n\n\n!For Petitioner\t:\tMr.D. Nallathambi\n\t\n^For Respondent\t: \tMr.M. Thilagar\n\n\t\t\t\n:O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThis Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order dated<br \/>\n08.04.2005 made in I.A.No.954 of 2004 in O.S.No.88 of 2004 on the file of the<br \/>\nDistrict Munsif, Aruppukottai.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.88 of 2004 on the file of the<br \/>\nlearned District Munsif, Aruppukottai and the respondent herein is the<br \/>\nplaintiff.  The respondent has  filed the above suit for recovery of money due<br \/>\nunder a promissory note.  The petitioner has filed a written statement denying<br \/>\nthe execution of the promissory note.  After framing of issues, the trial Court<br \/>\nhas proceeded with the trial of the case.  On the side of the plaintiff, it is<br \/>\nreported that two witnesses have been examined and on the side of the<br \/>\npetitioner\/defendant, D.W.1 alone has been examined.  At this stage, the<br \/>\npetitioner\/defendant has filed I.A.No.954 of 2004 seeking permission to file<br \/>\nadditional written statement.  The respondent opposed the said application by<br \/>\nfiling counter stating that the petition has been filed so belatedly and the<br \/>\nintention behind the petition is only to drag on the proceedings.  When the suit<br \/>\nhas been pending from the year 2002 onwards it is too late to file this I.A. at<br \/>\nthis length of time.  It has also been stated in the counter that the<br \/>\nallegations made in the additional written statement have got no relevance to<br \/>\nthe issues involved in this Suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. After hearing the learned counsel for both parties and after perusing<br \/>\nthe records, the learned District Munsif by order dated 08.04.2005 has dismissed<br \/>\nthe said I.A.  It is the said order which is now under challenge in this Civil<br \/>\nRevision.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. In paragraph 5 of the order of the learned District Munsif has<br \/>\nconcluded that the I.A. deserves to be dismissed on the ground that the same has<br \/>\nbeen filed belatedly without assigning any reason as to why, it was not filed in<br \/>\ntime.  The learned District Munsif has further held that it is only with a view<br \/>\nto drag on the proceedings, the said I.A. has been filed.  Regarding these<br \/>\nfindings, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the<br \/>\noriginal written statement, it has been specifically pleaded that the suit<br \/>\npromissory note was not at all executed by the petitioner and would further<br \/>\ncontend that the additional written statement is only to supplement the same by<br \/>\npleading the circumstances under which the plaintiff has been forced to file the<br \/>\nsuit by creating the promissory note.  Therefore, the learned counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioner concluded his arguments saying that as per various judgments of the<br \/>\nHon&#8217;ble Supreme Court and also by this Court including the one reported in<br \/>\n2006(5) C.T.C. Page 580 (Kaliathal Vs. Murugathal and Others), the lower Court<br \/>\nought to have had liberal approach in granting the prayer for filing additional<br \/>\nwritten statement.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. Per Contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that<br \/>\nthe suit has been pending from the year 2002 on wards and nothing prevented the<br \/>\npetitioner from filing detailed written statement before the commencement of the<br \/>\ntrial.  He would rely on the judgment of this Court reported in 2005(4) L.W. 482<br \/>\n(Chandru and others Vs. Ranganathan)  he prays for dismisaal of the C.R.P.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. I have considered the rival contentions made by the both the counsel.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. As rightly pointed out, the lower Court has dismissed  the I.A solely<br \/>\non the ground that it has been filed belatedly and further holding that the said<br \/>\nmove is only with a view to drag on the proceedings unnecessarily.  Of course,<br \/>\nit is correct that there is unnecessary delay on the part of the petitioner to<br \/>\nfile the additional written statement and also nothing prevented the petitioner<br \/>\nfrom filing the additional written statement atleast before recording of the<br \/>\noral evidence.  But on that score alone, the prayer of the petitioner to file<br \/>\nadditional written statement cannot be denied in view of the judgment of this<br \/>\nCourt reported in 2006(5) C.T.C.Page 580 (Supra cited) wherein the learned Judge<br \/>\nhas relied on the judgments of the apex Court reported in 2006(2) C.T.C.Page 55<br \/>\n(Ahmed Meera V. S. Kumaraswamy), AIR 2006 SC 2832 (Baldev Singh V. Manohar<br \/>\nSingh) and also a judgment reported in AIR 1922 PC 249 (Ma Shwe Mya V. Maung MO<br \/>\nHnaung.) In Paragraph 13 of the judgment, the learned Judge has held as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>Para 13.  As already stated, the rustic people, who depend upon the advise of<br \/>\nthe counsel appearing for them, cannot be faulted and that did not take due<br \/>\ndiligence while filing their earlier written statement.  Furthermore the<br \/>\namendment, if allowed, that would avoid multiplicity of proceedings by filing<br \/>\nanother Suit, which also avoid the conflicting judgments rendered by the Court<br \/>\nin a Suit filed by the respondents for declaration and the Suit to be filed by<br \/>\nthe petitioner seeking same prayer in a subsequent Suit.  Having regard to the<br \/>\nabove said facts, this Court is of the considered view that the interest of<br \/>\njustice would be met if the petitioner is allowed to raise the pleas by paying<br \/>\nnecessary fee.  The necessary corollary would be the order of the Trial Court<br \/>\nnon-suiting the petitioner on pedantic technicalities has to be set aside and<br \/>\nthe same is set aside and the Revision is allowed.  It is needless to say that<br \/>\nall the defence the respondents are having legally and factually can be agitated<br \/>\nbefore the Trial Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>Similar are the facts in the case on hand also.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. Applying the principles enumerated in the said judgment this Court has<br \/>\nto have a liberal approach while dealing with the prayer for permission to file<br \/>\nadditional written statement.  The learned counsel for respondent relies on<br \/>\nParagraph 12 of the judgment, reported in 2005(4) L.W. Page 482 wherein this<br \/>\nCourt has held as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>Para 12.\tThe object of the law of pleadings is that the Court and the<br \/>\nrespective parties, should fully know of the case before the parties go in for<br \/>\ntrial, so that, the trial may proceed in that well defined channel.  Now, by<br \/>\nputting forth new set of facts, after the plaintiff&#8217;s evidence is closed, the<br \/>\nDefendants are only attempting to divert the process of trial.  If the<br \/>\napplication is allowed, there would be no remedy to the plaintiff to adduce<br \/>\nproper evidence, thereby, meeting the defence plea set forth.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. But in the case on hand facts are not similar.  In the reported case, a<br \/>\nnew set of facts were sought to be put forth after the plaintiffs evidence was<br \/>\nclosed to divert the process of trial.  But in the case on hand, no new plea is<br \/>\ntaken and what is sought to be done is only  to supplement the earlier written<br \/>\nstatement by furnishing more details.  Therefore it is not the case that the<br \/>\nrespondent would be put to any prejudice if the petition is allowed.  Even<br \/>\nduring arguments, learned counsel for the respondent has not raised any question<br \/>\nof prejudice to the respondent if the additional written statement is allowed to<br \/>\nbe filed.  For all the above said reasons, by having liberal approach, the<br \/>\nlearned District Munsif ought to have allowed the I.A.  Thus the impugned order<br \/>\ndeserves to be set aside and accordingly set aside.  I.A.No.954 of 2004 stands<br \/>\nallowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. On perusal of the records, it is made clear that the Original Suit was<br \/>\nfiled before the Sub Court, Virudhunagar in O.S.No.2 of 2000 and later it was<br \/>\ntransferred to Sub Court, Aruppukottai and re numbered as O.S.No.141 of 2001 and<br \/>\nstill later it was transferred to the District Munsif Court, Aruppukottai and<br \/>\nrenumbered as O.S.No.88 of 2004.  Considering the fact that the suit has been<br \/>\npending from the year 2000 onwards, it is obsoletely necessary to issue a<br \/>\ndirection to the learned District Munsif, Aruppukottai to dispose off the suit<br \/>\nbefore the end of June 2007.  The learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes<br \/>\nthat the petitioner would co-operate for the disposal of the suit before the end<br \/>\nof June 2007.  It is further made clear that if the respondent wants to recall<br \/>\nany witness for  the purpose of  adducing any witness or for<br \/>\nS.NAGAMUTHU,J.\n<\/p>\n<p>ARUL<br \/>\nthe purpose of cross-examination, he shall be given the opportunity.  The trial<br \/>\nshall not be protracted at any cost beyond June 2007.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. Since the suit has been pending from the year 2000 and this I.A was<br \/>\nfiled only in the year of 2004, the respondent should be adequately compensated<br \/>\nby imposing appropriate cost on the petitioner.  Considering the facts and<br \/>\ncircumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to pay Rs.1000\/- towards<br \/>\ncosts to the respondent within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of<br \/>\nthis order.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. With above directions, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed.<br \/>\nConnected C.M.P. is also closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>The District Munsif Court,<br \/>\nAruppukottai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court A. Perumal Raj vs B. Rajendran on 10 April, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10\/04\/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU CRP.(PD) (MD) No.719 of 2005 and C.M.P.(MD) No.5575 of 2005 A. Perumal Raj &#8230; Petitioner Vs B. Rajendran &#8230; Respondent Prayer Civil Revision Petition has been filed [&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-166637","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>A. Perumal Raj vs B. Rajendran on 10 April, 2007 - 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\/a-perumal-raj-vs-b-rajendran-on-10-april-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A. Perumal Raj vs B. Rajendran on 10 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-perumal-raj-vs-b-rajendran-on-10-april-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-04-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-12-31T07:57:52+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\\\/a-perumal-raj-vs-b-rajendran-on-10-april-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-perumal-raj-vs-b-rajendran-on-10-april-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"A. Perumal Raj vs B. Rajendran on 10 April, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-31T07:57:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-perumal-raj-vs-b-rajendran-on-10-april-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1486,\"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\\\/a-perumal-raj-vs-b-rajendran-on-10-april-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-perumal-raj-vs-b-rajendran-on-10-april-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-perumal-raj-vs-b-rajendran-on-10-april-2007\",\"name\":\"A. Perumal Raj vs B. Rajendran on 10 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-31T07:57:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-perumal-raj-vs-b-rajendran-on-10-april-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-perumal-raj-vs-b-rajendran-on-10-april-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-perumal-raj-vs-b-rajendran-on-10-april-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A. Perumal Raj vs B. Rajendran on 10 April, 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":"A. Perumal Raj vs B. Rajendran on 10 April, 2007 - 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\/a-perumal-raj-vs-b-rajendran-on-10-april-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A. Perumal Raj vs B. Rajendran on 10 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-perumal-raj-vs-b-rajendran-on-10-april-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-04-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-12-31T07:57:52+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\/a-perumal-raj-vs-b-rajendran-on-10-april-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-perumal-raj-vs-b-rajendran-on-10-april-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"A. Perumal Raj vs B. Rajendran on 10 April, 2007","datePublished":"2007-04-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-31T07:57:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-perumal-raj-vs-b-rajendran-on-10-april-2007"},"wordCount":1486,"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\/a-perumal-raj-vs-b-rajendran-on-10-april-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-perumal-raj-vs-b-rajendran-on-10-april-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-perumal-raj-vs-b-rajendran-on-10-april-2007","name":"A. Perumal Raj vs B. Rajendran on 10 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-04-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-31T07:57:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-perumal-raj-vs-b-rajendran-on-10-april-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-perumal-raj-vs-b-rajendran-on-10-april-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-perumal-raj-vs-b-rajendran-on-10-april-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A. Perumal Raj vs B. Rajendran on 10 April, 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\/166637","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=166637"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/166637\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=166637"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=166637"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=166637"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}