{"id":166676,"date":"2011-10-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-10-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-application-caf-no-1514-vs-unknown-on-5-october-2011"},"modified":"2018-10-10T16:44:32","modified_gmt":"2018-10-10T11:14:32","slug":"civil-application-caf-no-1514-vs-unknown-on-5-october-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-application-caf-no-1514-vs-unknown-on-5-october-2011","title":{"rendered":"Civil Application (Caf) No. 1514 … vs Unknown on 5 October, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Civil Application (Caf) No. 1514 … vs Unknown on 5 October, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: A. B. Chaudhari<\/div>\n
                                       1\n\n\n\n\n                                                                        \n                                                \n            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                    NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR\n\n                    CIVIL APPLICATION (CAF) No. 1514 of 2011\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n                        (In FIRST APPEAL NO.836 OF 2009)\n\n\n     APPELLANT :-     Lubhan Gopal Nikhare\n                       aged about 38 years, Occ.: service\n                       r\/o Navegaon Vidyalaya, Navegaon Bandh,\n\n\n\n\n                                   \n                       Tahsil Arjuni Morgaon, Distt. Gondia.\n                    ig               ...VERSUS...\n\n     RESPONDENT :- Sau. Sandhya w\/o Lubhan Nikhare,\n                     aged 30 years, Occupation : Household,\n                  \n                     r\/o c\/o Nilkanth Ganpat Dhakate,\n                     Indira Gandhi Ward, Chandani Chowk,\n                     Bhandara.\n\n     APPLICANT :       Gopala Bansilal Nikhare,\n      \n\n                        aged 80 years, r\/o Sangadi,\n                       Tah. Sakoli, Distt. Bhandara.\n   \n\n\n\n     -------------------------------------------------------------\n                  Mr. Anil Mardikar Advocate for appellant.\n                 [Mr. J.R. Kidilay Advocate for respondent.\n     -------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n\n                                    CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI,J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                    DATED : 05.10.2011<\/p>\n
     ORAL JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
                This is an application filed by the father of the
\n     appellant   seeking   permission      to   prosecute            the    present
\n     appeal and for bringing him on record in place of his son-
\n     original    appellant,   who    expired    during       the     pendency       of
\n     this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     2.         This application has been vehemently opposed by<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:49:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                           2<\/span><\/p>\n
     the    respondent\/wife        and     reply       has    also     been      filed.\n<\/p>\n
     Placing reliance on the decision of supreme Court in the
\n     case of Smt. Yallawwa v. Smt. Shuntavva<\/a> – AIR 1997 SC 35
\n     learned counsel for the respondent\/wife argued that the
\n     appellant\/husband        Lubhan      having        expired        during         the<\/p>\n
     pendency of present appeal and the subject matter of the
\n     appeal being the proceedings for divorce between husband
\n     and wife on the ground of desertion and cruelty, the cause
\n     was purely a personal cause of action                   and, therefore, the<\/p>\n
     same would die with           the husband.      He then argued that the<\/p>\n
     respondent\/ wife has one child and at any rate on merits
\n     of the matter there is no substance in the present appeal
\n     as the decree of dismissal of divorce petition is well<\/p>\n
     justified.       According to him, the person sought to be
\n     substituted in place of original appellant is his father,
\n     who is not a class I heir but the child is, and therefore,
\n     no    better   rights    can    be   read    in    favour       of     father     as<\/p>\n
     against    the   son    of    original      appellant       and      respondent.\n<\/p>\n
     Therefore, the cause of action being a personal cause of
\n     action, this appeal will have to be dismissed as having
\n     been abated. In support of his contentions, he relied on<\/p>\n
     para 10 of the judgment of supreme court, cited supra.\n<\/p>\n
     3.        Per contra, Mr.Mardikar opposing the objection to
\n     his    application      for    bringing      the     father       of     original
\n     appellant on record, submitted that the aforesaid supreme
\n     court decision is in fact             a decision in favour of the<\/p>\n
     applicant.       He submits that in the said decision though
\n     the facts were similar the decree that was passed was an
\n     ex parte decree.        The said ex parte decree was set aside
\n     by the High Court and the proceedings of the petition for
\n     divorce were restored before the trial Court.                           Once the
\n     effect of ex parte decree was wiped out by virtue of the<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:49:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   3<\/span><\/p>\n
     decision of High Court by setting aside                             ex parte decree,<\/p>\n
     there was no decree standing in the way of either of the
\n     parties.     Therefore,             at     the     stage        after       remand       the
\n     proceedings       due        to     the     death       of    one        party     assumed
\n     character        of        purely     personal          cause       of     action,       and<\/p>\n
     therefore, in the facts of the said decision of Supreme
\n     Court it was held that the proceedings of divorce could
\n     not be continued in the trial Court.                            However, he argued
\n     that   sofar          as    the     instant        appeal           proceedings          are<\/p>\n
     concerned, the Supreme Court in categorical terms has held
\n     that   prosecution
\n     maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
                       ig          of         appeal    by     legal      heir        would   be<\/p>\n
     4.         I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties<\/p>\n
     at length and also carefully considered the supreme court
\n     decision, cited supra.                   It s not necessary to repeat what
\n     the Supreme Court has stated in the aforesaid decision.
\n     Insofar     as    the       present       case     is    concerned,it            would    be<\/p>\n
     relevant to quote the extracted portion from para 7 in<\/p>\n
     caption (i) and (ii) of the said decision.\n<\/p>\n
                      “But once these proceedings are initiated
\n                      by the concerned aggrieved spouse, the<\/p>\n
                      trial then proceeds further.                            It is of
\n                      course true that pending such trial if
\n                      either of the spouses expires then, as
\n                      seen        earlier,       the     personal         cause        of
\n                      action against the husband or the wife,<\/p>\n
                      as        the     case    may     be,       dies    with        the
\n                      departing spouse.                As no rights are still
\n                      crystallised by then against or in favour
\n                      of either spouse, no proprietary effect
\n                      or any adverse effect on the status of
\n                      the parties would get generated by mere<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:49:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
       filing of such petition and the status<\/p>\n
       quo ante would continue to operate during
\n       the trial of such petition.                     However, the
\n       situation gets changed once a decree of
\n       divorce follows in favour of either of<\/p>\n
       the     spouses        whether          such         decree     is
\n       bipartite or ex parte.                      Thereafter, as
\n       noted earlier direct legal consequences
\n       affecting the status                   of parties as well<\/p>\n
       as the proprietary                rights of either of<\/p>\n
       them, as
\n       such      a
\n                      noted earlier, would flow from
\n                         decree.                   Under            these
\n       circumstances,         if        the    aggrieved        spouse<\/p>\n
       who suffers from such legal effects of
\n       the adverse decree against him or her is
\n       told     off    the     gates          of   the       appellate
\n       proceedings       or       proceedings          for     setting<\/p>\n
       aside such ex parte decree, the concerned<\/p>\n
       spouse would suffer serious legal damage
\n       and      injury            without          getting            any
\n       opportunity       to       get     such     a     decree       set<\/p>\n
       aside     on    legally          permissible           grounds.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Consequently, it may be held that once
\n       the    petition       under        Section        13    of     the
\n       Hindu     Marriage         Act         results        into    any
\n       decree    of    divorce           either        ex    parte     or<\/p>\n
       bipartite       then       the    concerned           aggrieved
\n       spouse who suffers from such pernicious
\n       legal effects can legitimately try to get
\n       them reversed          through the assistance of
\n       the    Court.         In    such       an   exercise,         all
\n       other legal heirs of deceased spouse who<\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:49:04 :::<\/span>
\n                              5<\/span><\/p>\n
       are interested in getting such a decree<\/p>\n
       maintained     can    be    joined          as    necessary
\n       parties.      Section       13(1)        of      the    Hindu
\n       Marriage Act can obviously come in the
\n       way of such proceedings being maintained<\/p>\n
       against the legal heirs of the decree-
\n       holder spouse. …..\n<\/p>\n
                  In a decree of divorce on these
\n       grounds whether ex parte or bipartite is<\/p>\n
       not   permitted      to    be     challenged           by   the<\/p>\n
       aggrieved spouse, it would deprive the
\n       aggrieved spouse of an opportunity                           of
\n       getting such grounds re-examined by the<\/p>\n
       competent Court.           It cannot, therefore,
\n       be said that after a decree of divorce is
\n       passed against a spouse whether exparte
\n       or bipartite such aggrieved spouse cannot<\/p>\n
       prefer an appeal against such a decree or<\/p>\n
       cannot move for getting ex parte divorce
\n       decree set aside under Order IX Rule 13,
\n       C.P.C. Such proceedings would not abate<\/p>\n
       only because petitioner who has obtained
\n       such decree dies after obtaining such a
\n       decree.    The cause of action in such a
\n       case would survive qua the estate of the
\n       deceased spouse in the hands of his or<\/p>\n
       her   heirs     or        legal      representatives.\n<\/p>\n
       Consequently          in          such            appellate\n       proceedings     or    proceedings            under      Order\n<\/pre>\n
       IX, Rule 13 C.P.C., other heirs of the
\n       deceased     spouse        could       be        joined     as
\n       opposite      parties       as       they        would       be<\/p>\n
                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:49:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                      6<\/span><\/p>\n
       interested in urging that the surviving<\/p>\n
       spouse against whom such decree is passed
\n       remains a divorcee and is not treated to
\n       a     widow       or        widower        of       the     deceased
\n       original petitioner so that she or he may<\/p>\n
       not share with other heirs the property
\n       of deceased spouse.                     So far as the other
\n       heirs        of        the         deceased          spouse        are
\n       concerned,             they         would          certainly        be<\/p>\n
       interested             in     getting          the        decree    of<\/p>\n
       divorce confirmed by the appellate court
\n       or     by        the       trial        court        by     opposing
\n       application                under    Order           IX,     Rule    13<\/p>\n
       C.P.C.,          if    it     is     an       ex    parte     decree
\n       against the concerned spouse.                              It must,
\n       therefore, be held that when a divorce
\n       decree       is       challenged          by       the     aggrieved<\/p>\n
       spouse in proceedings whether by way of<\/p>\n
       appeal       or       by    way     of    application          under
\n       Order       IX    Rule       13,     C.P.C.,         for     setting
\n       aside the ex parte decree                                of divorce,<\/p>\n
       right       to         survive           to        the     aggrieved
\n       surviving             spouse       if     the       other     spouse
\n       having obtained such decree dies after
\n       decree and before appeal is filed against
\n       the     same          by    the     aggrieved             spouse    or<\/p>\n
       application is made under Order IX, Rule
\n       13 by the aggrieved spouse for getting
\n       such an ex parte decree of divorce set
\n       aside.       Similarly, the right to sue would
\n       also    survive             even    if     the      other     spouse
\n       dies pending such appeal or application<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:49:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                           7<\/span><\/p>\n
                  under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C.                       In their<\/p>\n
                  case proceedings can be continued against
\n                  the legal heirs of the deceased spouse
\n                  who may be interested in supporting the
\n                  decree       of   divorce      passed          against      the<\/p>\n
                  aggrieved spouse……”\n<\/p>\n
     5.         To my mind, the ratio decidendi of the aforesaid
\n     supreme court judgment applicable in the present case is<\/p>\n
     that the decree of dismissal of divorce petition of the<\/p>\n
     appellant\/ husband would continue to operate against (his
\n     legal heirs) interest without hearing his appeal, and that
\n     obviously    would   be    violative       of      principles         of    natural<\/p>\n
     justice.       Hence,     applicant-        father          of     the     original
\n     appellant\/husband       will    have      the     right       to    continue        to
\n     prosecute this appeal as the legal heir.                         That being so,
\n     it is imperative that the said legal heir of the appellant<\/p>\n
     ought to be allowed to prosecute the present appeal and<\/p>\n
     contest the decree which was passed against the original
\n     appellant\/   husband.          In   that    view       of    the     matter,       the
\n     objection taken by the learned counsel for respondent\/wife<\/p>\n
     will have to be over-ruled.                In the result, I make the
\n     following order.\n<\/p>\n
                                     ORDER
\n            C.A.F. No. 1514 of 2011 is allowed in terms of<\/p>\n
            its prayer clause (i).\n<\/p>\n
                       Amendment be carried out within one
\n            week.    C.A. disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
     6.         Learned counsel for respondent\/wife submits that
\n     the   application     made     by   the     wife       for       appointment        on<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:49:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                         8<\/span><\/p>\n
     compassionate ground in place of her husband has not been<\/p>\n
     considered   by    the   competent      authority      only     because       of
\n     pendency of the present appeal, and as a result the wife
\n     and her child are suffering financial crisis.                          He has
\n     filed   photo     copy   of   letter    dated    5.9.2011        issued       by<\/p>\n
     Navodya   Vidyalaya      Samiti,       which    is    marked        “X”      for
\n     identification and taken on record, which supports what
\n     the counsel is saying.        He, therefore, prayed for disposal
\n     of appeal on merits, to which the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
     appellant has no objection.            In that view of the matter,<\/p>\n
     let this appeal be fixed for final hearing on 18.10.2011
\n     at 2-30 p.m.<\/p>\n
                                   JUDGE<\/p>\n
     \/TA\/<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:49:04 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Civil Application (Caf) No. 1514 … vs Unknown on 5 October, 2011 Bench: A. B. Chaudhari 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION (CAF) No. 1514 of 2011 (In FIRST APPEAL NO.836 OF 2009) APPELLANT :- Lubhan Gopal Nikhare aged about 38 years, Occ.: service […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-166676","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nCivil Application (Caf) No. 1514 ... vs Unknown on 5 October, 2011 - 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\/civil-application-caf-no-1514-vs-unknown-on-5-october-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Civil Application (Caf) No. 1514 ... vs Unknown on 5 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-application-caf-no-1514-vs-unknown-on-5-october-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-10-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-10T11:14:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-application-caf-no-1514-vs-unknown-on-5-october-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-application-caf-no-1514-vs-unknown-on-5-october-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Civil Application (Caf) No. 1514 … vs Unknown on 5 October, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-10T11:14:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-application-caf-no-1514-vs-unknown-on-5-october-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1613,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-application-caf-no-1514-vs-unknown-on-5-october-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-application-caf-no-1514-vs-unknown-on-5-october-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-application-caf-no-1514-vs-unknown-on-5-october-2011\",\"name\":\"Civil Application (Caf) No. 1514 ... vs Unknown on 5 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-10T11:14:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-application-caf-no-1514-vs-unknown-on-5-october-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-application-caf-no-1514-vs-unknown-on-5-october-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-application-caf-no-1514-vs-unknown-on-5-october-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Civil Application (Caf) No. 1514 … vs Unknown on 5 October, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Civil Application (Caf) No. 1514 ... vs Unknown on 5 October, 2011 - 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\/civil-application-caf-no-1514-vs-unknown-on-5-october-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Civil Application (Caf) No. 1514 ... vs Unknown on 5 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-application-caf-no-1514-vs-unknown-on-5-october-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-10-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-10T11:14:32+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-application-caf-no-1514-vs-unknown-on-5-october-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-application-caf-no-1514-vs-unknown-on-5-october-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Civil Application (Caf) No. 1514 … vs Unknown on 5 October, 2011","datePublished":"2011-10-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-10T11:14:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-application-caf-no-1514-vs-unknown-on-5-october-2011"},"wordCount":1613,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-application-caf-no-1514-vs-unknown-on-5-october-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-application-caf-no-1514-vs-unknown-on-5-october-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-application-caf-no-1514-vs-unknown-on-5-october-2011","name":"Civil Application (Caf) No. 1514 ... vs Unknown on 5 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-10-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-10T11:14:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-application-caf-no-1514-vs-unknown-on-5-october-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-application-caf-no-1514-vs-unknown-on-5-october-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-application-caf-no-1514-vs-unknown-on-5-october-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Civil Application (Caf) No. 1514 … vs Unknown on 5 October, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/166676","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=166676"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/166676\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=166676"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=166676"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=166676"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}