{"id":169973,"date":"2010-04-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ankleshwar-vs-hasmukhlal-on-9-april-2010"},"modified":"2015-07-02T19:24:43","modified_gmt":"2015-07-02T13:54:43","slug":"ankleshwar-vs-hasmukhlal-on-9-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ankleshwar-vs-hasmukhlal-on-9-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"Ankleshwar vs Hasmukhlal on 9 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ankleshwar vs Hasmukhlal on 9 April, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Abhilasha Kumari,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/1742\/2005\t 12\/ 14\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 1742 of 2005\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 1727 of 2005\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHON'BLE\nSMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI\n \n \n=====================================================\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=====================================================\n \n\nANKLESHWAR\nNAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD. THRO.MANAGER - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nHASMUKHLAL\nMOHANLAL AMDAVADI &amp; 2 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=====================================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nCHIRAG B PATEL for Petitioner(s) : 1, \nMR ASHUTOSH R BHATT for\nRespondent(s) : 1 - 2. \nRULE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) :\n1.2.1, 1.2.2,\n3, \n=====================================================\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHON'BLE\n\t\t\tSMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 09\/04\/2010 \n\n \n\n \nCOMMON\nORAL JUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>1.\tAs<br \/>\nboth petitions involve common questions of fact and law and the same<br \/>\norder is impugned in them, they are being heard together and decided<br \/>\nby a common judgment.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tThe<br \/>\nchallenge in these petitions is to common order dated 19-1-2004<br \/>\npassed by the Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal,Ahmedabad ( The<br \/>\nTribunal  for short) in Appeal Nos.925 of 2001 and 926 of 2001,<br \/>\narising out of Lavad Suit Nos.744 of 1993 and 745 of 1993.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tThe<br \/>\npetitioner is the Ankleshwar Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd.\tThe brief<br \/>\nfactual background in which the petitions have been filed is that the<br \/>\npetitioner-Bank advanced a loan to Pradipkumar Sanmukhlal Parikh<br \/>\n(respondent No.3 in Special Civil Application No.1742 of 2005) for<br \/>\npurchasing a rickshaw. Respondent No.1 Bhuriben Mohanlal Amdavadi and<br \/>\nrespondent No.2 stood as sureties\/guarantors towards the said loan<br \/>\nwith the condition to repay the loan amount by instalments with<br \/>\ninterest on the principal amount. The said loan was sanctioned on<br \/>\n1-12-1989. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.3 paid<br \/>\nsome of the instalments towards the loan  but all of a sudden the<br \/>\npayments were stopped. The outstanding amount of the loan was<br \/>\nRs.17,580\/-. As the said amount was not forthcoming, the<br \/>\npetitioner-Bank filed Lavad Suit No.745 of 1993 against the original<br \/>\ndebtor as well as the sureties\/guarantors, before the Board of<br \/>\nNominees, Vadodara.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tSimilarly,<br \/>\nrespondent No.2 of Special Civil Application No.1727 of 2005,<br \/>\nMaheshkumar Motilal Khristi obtained a loan of Rs.19,700\/- for<br \/>\npurchasing a rickshaw from the petitioner-Bank, on or about,<br \/>\n24-12-1988. Bhuriben, who is also respondent No.1 in the  said<br \/>\npetition  and respondent No.3 stood as sureties\/guarantors. The loan<br \/>\namount along with interest was not paid to the petitioner Bank,<br \/>\nleading to filing of Lavad Suit No.744 of 1993,before the Board of<br \/>\nNominees,Vadodara.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tBoth<br \/>\nLavad Suit Nos.744 of 1993 and 745 of 1993 were decided by a common<br \/>\njudgment by the Board of Nominees. The Suits were decreed in favour<br \/>\nof the petitioner-Bank by judgment and award dated 10-10-2001.<br \/>\nAggrieved thereby, Bhuriben,respondent No.1, filed appeals in both<br \/>\nthe Lavad Suits before the Tribunal, which have been allowed by<br \/>\npassing the impugned order, whereby the order passed by the Board of<br \/>\nNominees in Lavad Suits has been set aside qua respondent No.1, by<br \/>\nthe Tribunal. Aggrieved by the said decision of the Tribunal, the<br \/>\npetitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petitions.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tAt<br \/>\nthe very outset Mr.Chirag B.Patel,learned counsel for the petitioner<br \/>\nhas submitted that he is confining his submissions to  only  one<br \/>\nground, that the procedure as prescribed in Rule 85 of the Gujarat<br \/>\nCo-operative Societies Rules,1965 ( The Rules  for short) has not<br \/>\nbeen followed, while passing the impugned order.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tMr.Chirag<br \/>\nB.Patel, learned  counsel for the petitioner-Bank has submitted that<br \/>\nthe petitioner has a grievance only against respondent No.1<br \/>\nBhuriben,who  has appended her right thumb impression on the surety<br \/>\nbond,  which is now disputed by her in the Lavad Suits and the<br \/>\nAppeal. It is further submitted that  the impugned order of the<br \/>\nTribunal has been passed in violation of the provisions of Rule 85 of<br \/>\nthe Rules as under the said Rule, the Tribunal cannot look into the<br \/>\nadditional evidence unless an application for the same is submitted<br \/>\nand allowed. In the present case, respondent No.1 has produced the<br \/>\nopinion of the Hand Writing Expert which has been relied upon in a<br \/>\ncriminal case filed by her at the stage of filing the appeal before<br \/>\nthe Tribunal, and the said document had been submitted along with the<br \/>\nMemorandum  of appeal, and not by filing a separate application. The<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Rule 85<br \/>\nstipulates that either party is entitled to produce rebutting<br \/>\nevidence and to address the Appellate Authority on all points arising<br \/>\nout of the fresh evidence or deposition of witnesses, if any, and as<br \/>\nthe Tribunal has permitted respondent No.1 to produce additional<br \/>\nevidence along with the Memorandum of appeal, the mandatory procedure<br \/>\nprescribed in the said Rule has not been followed. The petitioner has<br \/>\nnot got the opportunity to cross-examine the Hand Writing Expert as<br \/>\nthe said Expert was not summoned, thereby constituted a grave<br \/>\nprocedural lapse. It is submitted that the impugned order, being<br \/>\nillegal, deserves to be quashed and set aside,and the petition<br \/>\nallowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tMr.Ashutosh<br \/>\nR.Bhatt, learned advocate appears for  respondents Nos.1\/ and 1\/ 2<br \/>\nwho are the heirs and legal representatives of  deceased respondent<br \/>\nNo.1-Bhuriben. Respondents Nos.2 and 3 have been served duly but have<br \/>\nnot chosen to appear through-out the proceedings.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tIt<br \/>\nis submitted by Mr.Ashutosh R.Bhatt,learned advocate, that respondent<br \/>\nNo.1 has never stood as guarantor or appended her thumb impression on<br \/>\nthe surety bond, therefore, neither she nor her legal heirs are<br \/>\nliable to pay any amount to the Bank. It is contended that respondent<br \/>\nNo.1 has filed Criminal Complaint No.55 of 1993 before the learned<br \/>\nJudicial Magistrate, First Class, Ankleshwar,wherein the learned<br \/>\nJudicial Magistrate, passed an order for inquiry under Section 156(3)<br \/>\nof the Code of Criminal Procedure directing the Investigating Agency<br \/>\nto further investigate the matter. After the investigation, the<br \/>\nPolice submitted a  C  Summary report before the learned Judicial<br \/>\nMagistrate which was rejected, with a direction for further<br \/>\ninvestigation. The police submitted the report  along with the expert<br \/>\nopinion regarding the thumb impression of respondent No.1.<br \/>\nUltimately, on the basis of the expert opinion and material on<br \/>\nrecord, the learned  Judicial Magistrate, ordered  issuance of<br \/>\nprocess. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has further<br \/>\nsubmitted that the respondent Nos.1\/1 and 1\/ 2 are not relying on the<br \/>\nopinion of the Hand Writing Expert but on the order of the Criminal<br \/>\nCourt. It is further submitted that even on merits, the respondents<br \/>\nNos.1\/1 and 1\/ 2 have a good case as it is clear from the material on<br \/>\nrecord that the rickshaws for which the loans were advanced were sold<br \/>\nand the Bank has remained negligent in attaching the said<br \/>\nrickshaws,which observation has rightly been made in the impugned<br \/>\norder. Though it is specifically denied that respondent No.1 ever<br \/>\nstood as a guarantor, for the sake of assumption if it is presumed to<br \/>\nbe so even then, once the rickshaws are sold respondent No.1 ceases<br \/>\nto remain  a guarantor, and her liability comes to an end.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.1\tRegarding<br \/>\nthe provisions of Rule 85 of the Rules, it is submitted by<br \/>\nMr.Ashutosh R.Bhatt,learned advocate for respondents No.1\/1 and 1\/ 2<br \/>\nthat there is no violation of the said Rule by the Tribunal while<br \/>\npassing the impugned order. It is contended that Rule 85 does not<br \/>\ncontain any blanket bar to the effect that no documents can be<br \/>\naccepted by the Appellate Authority. The said Rule stipulates that<br \/>\nthe documents tendered by a party can be accepted by the Appellate<br \/>\nAuthority if they are deemed necessary for deciding the appeal,<br \/>\nprovided that the other party is entitled to produce rebutting<br \/>\nevidence. Mr.Bhatt has emphatically submitted that nobody had stopped<br \/>\nthe petitioner from producing rebutting evidence, and if it has not<br \/>\nchosen to do so, it alone is responsible for the lapse. The<br \/>\npetitioner had ample opportunity to address the Appellate Authority<br \/>\nas per provisions of Rule 85(3) and in fact, has not been prevented<br \/>\nfrom doing so either by the Tribunal or the respondents<br \/>\nand,therefore, no violation of Rule 85 has occurred while passing the<br \/>\nimpugned order. On the strength of the above submissions, it is<br \/>\nsubmitted by Mr.Bhatt that the petition be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\tI<br \/>\nhave heard the learned counsel  for the respective parties, perused<br \/>\nthe averments made in the petition, contents of the impugned order<br \/>\nand other documents on record. The first, and only, contention raised<br \/>\nby the learned counsel for the petitioner is that while passing the<br \/>\nimpugned order the Tribunal  has contravened the provisions of Rule<br \/>\n85,  which constitutes a serious procedural lapse, and renders the<br \/>\nimpugned order  illegal and bad in law. In this regard, it has also<br \/>\nbeen emphasised that the Tribunal, which is the Appellate Authority,<br \/>\nhas accepted additional evidence in the form of documents  with the<br \/>\nMemorandum of appeal, and no separate application for production of<br \/>\nadditional evidence was filed by respondent No.1. It has further been<br \/>\nsubmitted on behalf of the petitioner that, had an expert been<br \/>\nsummoned the petitioner would have got an opportunity to<br \/>\ncross-examine him regarding the opinion given  in the criminal<br \/>\ncase,pertaining to the right thumb impression of respondent No.1.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.\tIn<br \/>\norder to decide the issues raised in the petitions,it would be<br \/>\nrelevant to notice the provisions of Rule 85, which are reproduced<br \/>\nherein-below:\n<\/p>\n<p> 85.<br \/>\nFresh evidence and witness :\n<\/p>\n<p>(1)\tNo<br \/>\nparty to an appeal shall be entitled to adduce fresh evidence whether<br \/>\noral or documentary before the appellate authority. The appellate<br \/>\nauthority may accept<br \/>\ndocuments tendered by a party or call for the same if it is of the<br \/>\nopinion that they are necessary for deciding the appeal,provided that<br \/>\nthe other party shall in that case be entitled to produce<br \/>\nrebutting evidence.\n<\/p>\n<p>(2)\tIf<br \/>\nthe appellate authority is of opinion that any witness should be<br \/>\nexamined, it may do so,if it is necessary for deciding the appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>(3)\tWhere<br \/>\nfresh evidence has been adduced under sub-rule (1) or a witness has<br \/>\nbeen examined as provided in sub-rule(2) the parties may, if they so<br \/>\ndesire address the appellate authority on points arising out of the<br \/>\nfresh evidence or the deposition of the witness.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.\tAlthough<br \/>\nRule 85(1) states that no party to an appeal shall be entitled to<br \/>\nadduce fresh oral or documentary evidence before the Appellate<br \/>\nAuthority, it goes on to state that the Appellate Authority may<br \/>\naccept documents tendered by a party, or call for the same,if it is<br \/>\nof the opinion that they  are necessary for deciding the appeal. The<br \/>\ninbuilt proviso under Rule 85 stipulates that in case the Appellate<br \/>\nAuthority accepts documents tendered by a party or calls for the same<br \/>\nitself, the other party shall be entitled to produce rebutting<br \/>\nevidence. A perusal of the provisions of Sub-rule(1) of Rule 85 shows<br \/>\nthat the said Sub-rule does not stipulate that a separate application<br \/>\nfor producing additional evidence is to be filed by the party<br \/>\ndesirous of tendering the same. Documents tendered by a party can be<br \/>\naccepted by the Appellate Authority (in this case the Tribunal) if it<br \/>\nforms the opinion that they are necessary for deciding the appeal.<br \/>\nThe only rider is that, if such documents are accepted or called for,<br \/>\nthe other side is entitled to produce evidence in rebuttal. In the<br \/>\npresent case, admittedly respondent No.1, who was the appellant<br \/>\nbefore  the Tribunal has tendered documents with the Memorandum of<br \/>\nappeal. The petitioner, who was opponent No.1 in the appeal, has<br \/>\nfiled its reply to the Memorandum of Appeal, wherein the stand taken<br \/>\nby respondent No.1 has been denied and the documents annexed have<br \/>\nbeen rebutted. A copy of the reply  produced by the learned counsel<br \/>\nfor the petitioner,  has been taken on record. The contention of the<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the petitioner, to the effect that no opportunity<br \/>\nof producing rebutting evidence was granted to it cannot,therefore,<br \/>\nbe accepted. Had the petitioner wanted to produce any more evidence<br \/>\nin rebuttal, it could have done so as there was no estoppal or bar<br \/>\nupon it. If,however, it did not choose to do so, it alone is<br \/>\nresponsible  and no provision of Rule 85 is violated nor is the order<br \/>\nof the Tribunal rendered bad in law or illegal,as it is not the case<br \/>\nof the petitioner that the Tribunal had prevented it from producing<br \/>\nevidence in rebuttal.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.1\tSub-Rule<br \/>\n(2) of Rule 85 provides  that if the Appellate Authority is of the<br \/>\nopinion that any witness should be examined,if it is necessary for<br \/>\ndeciding the matter it can proceed to do so. In the present case, no<br \/>\nwitness has been summoned. Respondent No.1 has relied upon the<br \/>\njudgment in the Criminal Case as well as the opinion of the Hand<br \/>\nWriting Expert, on the basis of which the judgment has been rendered.<br \/>\nIt therefore,appears that the Appellate Authority  did not consider<br \/>\nit  necessary to examine the Hand Writing Expert. Discretion, whether<br \/>\nto summon any witness or not, lies with the Appellate Authority as<br \/>\nper Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 85, therefore, the contention of the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for  the petitioner that opportunity to cross-examine the<br \/>\nExpert was not granted to it,cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.2\tSub-rule<br \/>\n(3) of Rule 85  stipulates that the parties are permitted to address<br \/>\nthe Appellate Authority,if they so desire, on points arising  out of<br \/>\nfresh evidence that may have been adduced under Sub-rule (1) or the<br \/>\ndeposition of witnesses under Sub-rule (2). It is not the case put<br \/>\nforth by  the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal<br \/>\nhas refused the opportunity, or prevented the petitioner from<br \/>\naddressing it, on any relevant point.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.<br \/>\nThe submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner<br \/>\nregarding  violation of the provisions of Rule 85 by the Tribunal<br \/>\nare, therefore, not worthy of acceptance.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.\tIn<br \/>\nany case, the provisions of Rule 85 are procedural in nature and are<br \/>\nnot substantive provisions. Even so, in the considered opinion of<br \/>\nthis Court, the Tribunal has not digressed from the procedure<br \/>\nprescribed in the said Rule, while passing the impugned order.\n<\/p>\n<p>15.\tThough<br \/>\nthe learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1\/1 and 1\/ 2 has<br \/>\naddressed this Court on certain issues touching upon the merits of<br \/>\nthe case,   as the learned counsel for the petitioner has confined<br \/>\nthe challenge in the petition only to the question of violation of<br \/>\nRule 85 of the Rules, this Court does not consider it necessary or<br \/>\nproper to go into the other points raised.\n<\/p>\n<p>16.\tAs<br \/>\na result of  the above discussion and for the aforestated reasons,<br \/>\nthe petitions fail and are dismissed. Rule is discharged, in both<br \/>\npetitions.  Interim relief, if any,stands vacated,in both matters.<br \/>\nThere shall be no orders,as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>   \t\t           \t(Smt.Abhilasha Kumari,J)<\/p>\n<p>arg<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Ankleshwar vs Hasmukhlal on 9 April, 2010 Author: Abhilasha Kumari,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/1742\/2005 12\/ 14 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1742 of 2005 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1727 of 2005 For Approval and Signature: HON&#8217;BLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-169973","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Ankleshwar vs Hasmukhlal on 9 April, 2010 - 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\/ankleshwar-vs-hasmukhlal-on-9-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ankleshwar vs Hasmukhlal on 9 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ankleshwar-vs-hasmukhlal-on-9-april-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-02T13:54:43+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ankleshwar-vs-hasmukhlal-on-9-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ankleshwar-vs-hasmukhlal-on-9-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ankleshwar vs Hasmukhlal on 9 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-02T13:54:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ankleshwar-vs-hasmukhlal-on-9-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2313,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ankleshwar-vs-hasmukhlal-on-9-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ankleshwar-vs-hasmukhlal-on-9-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ankleshwar-vs-hasmukhlal-on-9-april-2010\",\"name\":\"Ankleshwar vs Hasmukhlal on 9 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-02T13:54:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ankleshwar-vs-hasmukhlal-on-9-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ankleshwar-vs-hasmukhlal-on-9-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ankleshwar-vs-hasmukhlal-on-9-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ankleshwar vs Hasmukhlal on 9 April, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Ankleshwar vs Hasmukhlal on 9 April, 2010 - 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\/ankleshwar-vs-hasmukhlal-on-9-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ankleshwar vs Hasmukhlal on 9 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ankleshwar-vs-hasmukhlal-on-9-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-02T13:54:43+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ankleshwar-vs-hasmukhlal-on-9-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ankleshwar-vs-hasmukhlal-on-9-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ankleshwar vs Hasmukhlal on 9 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-02T13:54:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ankleshwar-vs-hasmukhlal-on-9-april-2010"},"wordCount":2313,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ankleshwar-vs-hasmukhlal-on-9-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ankleshwar-vs-hasmukhlal-on-9-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ankleshwar-vs-hasmukhlal-on-9-april-2010","name":"Ankleshwar vs Hasmukhlal on 9 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-02T13:54:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ankleshwar-vs-hasmukhlal-on-9-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ankleshwar-vs-hasmukhlal-on-9-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ankleshwar-vs-hasmukhlal-on-9-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ankleshwar vs Hasmukhlal on 9 April, 2010"}]},{"@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\/169973","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=169973"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/169973\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=169973"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=169973"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=169973"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}