{"id":174567,"date":"2010-01-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-munni-devi-vs-shiv-prakash-putan-on-5-january-2010"},"modified":"2016-09-24T05:19:38","modified_gmt":"2016-09-23T23:49:38","slug":"smt-munni-devi-vs-shiv-prakash-putan-on-5-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-munni-devi-vs-shiv-prakash-putan-on-5-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Smt. Munni Devi vs Shiv Prakash @ Putan on 5 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Allahabad High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Smt. Munni Devi vs Shiv Prakash @ Putan on 5 January, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>                                     1\n\nCourt No. - 11\n\nCase :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 132 of 2000\n\nPetitioner :- Smt. Munni Devi\nRespondent :- Shiv Prakash @ Putan\nPetitioner Counsel :- Mohd. Saeed\nRespondent Counsel :- Raj Bahadur Yadav,S.K. Rastogi\n\nHon'ble Anil Kumar,J.\n<\/pre>\n<p>       List revised. None present on behalf of the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>       Heard Sri Mohd. Saeed, learned counsel for the revisionist and<br \/>\nperused the record.\n<\/p>\n<p>       Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that on 16.10.1986<br \/>\nrespondent nos.1 to 3 of the present revision had filed a suit for<br \/>\npermanent injunction in the court of Munsif Purwa, Unnao, which was<br \/>\nregistered as Regular Suit No.128 of 1986 (Shiv Prakash and others<br \/>\nVs. Smt. Munni Devi and others). In the said suit the present revisionist<br \/>\nSmt. Munni Devi, who is respondent no.1, had taken a preliminary<br \/>\nobjection to the effect that the suit filed by the respondent no.1 to 3 is<br \/>\nnot maintainable before the trial Court in view of           provisions as<br \/>\nprovided under Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land<br \/>\nReforms Act as such an issue no.1 had been framed by the trial court to<br \/>\nthe said effect and after hearing the parties the trial court by order dated<br \/>\n21.1.2000 decided the said issues holding therein that the suit is<br \/>\ncognizable by the civil court.\n<\/p>\n<p>       The order dated 21.1.2000 was challenged by the present<br \/>\nrevisionist before the District Judge, Unnao by way of revision under<br \/>\nSection 115 of C.P.C. as the said revision is barred by time so an<br \/>\napplication for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation<br \/>\nAct supported by an affidavit had been filed and accordingly a Civil<br \/>\nMisc. Case No.136 of 2000, Smt. Munni Devi Vs. Shiv Prakash was<br \/>\nregistered before the District Judge, Unnao.\n<\/p>\n<p>       By order dated 2.9.2000 District Judge, Unnao dismissed the<br \/>\npetitioner&#8217;s application for condonation of delay under Section 5 on the<br \/>\nground that no sufficient reason had been shown for filing the revision<br \/>\nat a belated stage and further by the said order the Original Suit No.128<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                        2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>of 1986, Shiv Prakash and others Vs. Smt. Munni Devi was transferred<br \/>\nfrom the court of Civil Judge, Purwa, Unnao to Civil Judge (Junior<br \/>\nDivision) North, Unnao.\n<\/p>\n<p>          The order dated 2.9.2000 passed by District Judge, Unnao in<br \/>\nMisc. Case No.136 of 2000 is challenge before this Court by way of<br \/>\npresent revision.\n<\/p>\n<p>          Further this Court on 22.11.2000 has passed the following<br \/>\norder:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                    &#8220;Admit.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                    Issue notice to opposite parties 1 to 4<br \/>\n            returnable at an early date.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                    In the meantime, operation of the impugned<br \/>\n            order dated 2.9.2000 passed by District Judge,<br \/>\n            Unnao shall remain stayed consequently further<br \/>\n            proceedings in Reg. Suit No.128 of 1986 pending<br \/>\n            in the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div ) North, Unnao<br \/>\n            shall remain stayed till the next date of listing.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                    List in Jan. 2001.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>          Admittedly in the present case, the application which was<br \/>\nmoved by the revisionist under Section 5 of the Limitation Act thereby<br \/>\nhad been rejected by order dated 2.9.2000 passed by District Judge,<br \/>\nUnnao in Civil Misc. Case No.136 of 2000. It has been the constant<br \/>\nview of Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court and this Court that the principles of<br \/>\nnatural justice must be followed and nobody should be condemned<br \/>\nunheard and if any order is passed without hearing the parties then the<br \/>\nsame is violation of principle of natural justice and cannot be sustained<br \/>\nin law so the order dated 2.9.2000 is not sustainable and liable to be set<br \/>\naside.\n<\/p>\n<p>          Further in the matter of condonation of delay, the Apex Court<br \/>\nhas consistently held that pragmatic view should be taken.\n<\/p>\n<p>          In the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Kati Ji and<br \/>\nothers, 1987(13) ALR 306 (SC)              Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court held as<br \/>\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                              3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>       &#8220;The legislator has conferred the power to<br \/>\ncondone delay by enacting section 5 of the Limitation<br \/>\nAct of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do<br \/>\nsubstantial justice to parties by disposing of matter on<br \/>\n&#8220;merits&#8221;. The expression &#8220;sufficient cause&#8221; employed<br \/>\nby the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the<br \/>\nCourts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which<br \/>\nsub-serves the ends of justice &#8211; that being the life &#8211;<br \/>\npurpose of the existence of the institution of Courts. It<br \/>\nis common knowledge that this Court has been making<br \/>\na justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in<br \/>\nthis Court. But the message does not appear to have<br \/>\npercolated down to all the other Courts in the<br \/>\nhierarchy.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>       And such a liberal approach is adopted on<br \/>\nprinciple as it is realized that:\n<\/p>\n<p>       1.     Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to<br \/>\nbenefit by lodging an appeal late.\n<\/p>\n<p>       2.     Refusing to condone delay can result in a<br \/>\nmeritorious matter being thrown out at the very<br \/>\nthreshold and cause of justice being defeated. As<br \/>\nagainst this; when delay is condoned, the highest that<br \/>\ncan happen is that a cause would he decided on merit<br \/>\nafter hearing the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>       3.     &#8220;Every &#8221; day&#8217;s delay must be explained&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>does not mean that a pedantic approach should be<br \/>\nmade. Why not every hour&#8217;s delay, every second&#8217;s<br \/>\ndelay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational,<br \/>\ncommon sense and pragmatic manner.\n<\/p>\n<p>       4.       When substantial justice and technical<br \/>\nconsiderations are pitted against each other, the cause<br \/>\nof substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the<br \/>\nother side can not claim to have vested right in<br \/>\ninjustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                      4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>               5.         There is no presumption that delay is<br \/>\n        occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable<br \/>\n        negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does<br \/>\n        not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he<br \/>\n        runs a serious risk.\n<\/p>\n<p>               6.         It must be grapped that the judiciary is<br \/>\n        respected not on account of its power          to legalise<br \/>\n        injustice   on technical grounds but because it is<br \/>\n        capable of removing injsutice and is expected to do<br \/>\n        so.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>       In N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy,(1998) 7 SCC 133<br \/>\nthe Apex Court explained the scope of limitation and condonatin of<br \/>\ndelay, observing as under :-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>               &#8221; The primary function of a Court is to<br \/>\n        adjudicate the dispute      between the parties and to<br \/>\n        advance substantial justice. The time- limit fixed for<br \/>\n        approaching the Court in different situations is not<br \/>\n        because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would<br \/>\n        transform into a good cause. Rules of limitation are not<br \/>\n        meant to destroy the rights of parties . They are meant<br \/>\n        to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but<br \/>\n        seek their remedy for the redress of the legal injury so<br \/>\n        suffered. The law of limitation is thus founded on<br \/>\n        public policy.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>       In Smt. Prabha Vs. Ram Praskash Kalra, 1987 (Suppl.) SCC<br \/>\n338 the Supreme Court took the view that the Court should not adopt<br \/>\nan injustice- oriented approach in rejecting the application for<br \/>\ncondonation of delay.\n<\/p>\n<p>       In Vedabai alias Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil Vs. Shantaram<br \/>\nBaburao Patil and others, 2001 (44) ALR 577 (SC) the Apex Court<br \/>\nmade a distinction in delay and inordinate delay observing as under:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                &#8221; In exercising discretion under section 5 of<br \/>\n        the Limitation Act, the Courts should adopt a<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                     5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>         pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made<br \/>\n         between a case where the delay is inordinate and a<br \/>\n         case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in<br \/>\n         the former case the consideration of prejudice to the<br \/>\n         otherwise will be a relevant factor so the case calls<br \/>\n         for a more cautious approach&#8230;..&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>       In New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Shanti Misra, AIR<br \/>\n1976 SC 237 Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court held that discretion given by<br \/>\nsection 5 should not be defined or crystallized so as to convert a<br \/>\ndiscretionary matter into a rigid rule of law. The expression&#8221; sufficient<br \/>\ncause&#8221; should receive a liberal construction.\n<\/p>\n<p>       In Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari, AIR 1969 SC 575,<br \/>\nthe Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court held that unless want bona fides of such<br \/>\ninaction or negligence as would deprive a party of the protection of<br \/>\nsection 5 is proved, the application must not be thrown out of any delay<br \/>\ncannot be refused to be condoned.\n<\/p>\n<p>       In O.P. Kathpalia Vs Lakhmir Singh, AIR 1984 SC 1744 the<br \/>\nHon&#8217;ble Supreme Court held that if the refusal to condone the delay<br \/>\nresults in grave miscarriage of justice, it would be a ground to condone<br \/>\nthe delay.\n<\/p>\n<p>       In view of above said facts, the revision is allowed. The order<br \/>\ndated 2.9.2000 passed by the District Judge, Unnao is set aside, the<br \/>\nmatter is remanded back to the District Judge, Unnao to decide the<br \/>\nmatter in question after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties<br \/>\nconcerned in accordance with law expeditiously say within a period of<br \/>\nthree months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.\n<\/p>\n<p>Order Date :- 5.1.2010<br \/>\nPramod\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Allahabad High Court Smt. Munni Devi vs Shiv Prakash @ Putan on 5 January, 2010 1 Court No. &#8211; 11 Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. &#8211; 132 of 2000 Petitioner :- Smt. Munni Devi Respondent :- Shiv Prakash @ Putan Petitioner Counsel :- Mohd. Saeed Respondent Counsel :- Raj Bahadur Yadav,S.K. Rastogi Hon&#8217;ble Anil Kumar,J. [&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":[9,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-174567","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allahabad-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Smt. Munni Devi vs Shiv Prakash @ Putan on 5 January, 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\/smt-munni-devi-vs-shiv-prakash-putan-on-5-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt. Munni Devi vs Shiv Prakash @ Putan on 5 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-munni-devi-vs-shiv-prakash-putan-on-5-january-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=\"2010-01-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-23T23:49:38+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-munni-devi-vs-shiv-prakash-putan-on-5-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-munni-devi-vs-shiv-prakash-putan-on-5-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt. Munni Devi vs Shiv Prakash @ Putan on 5 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-23T23:49:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-munni-devi-vs-shiv-prakash-putan-on-5-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1382,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Allahabad High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-munni-devi-vs-shiv-prakash-putan-on-5-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-munni-devi-vs-shiv-prakash-putan-on-5-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-munni-devi-vs-shiv-prakash-putan-on-5-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Smt. Munni Devi vs Shiv Prakash @ Putan on 5 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-23T23:49:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-munni-devi-vs-shiv-prakash-putan-on-5-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-munni-devi-vs-shiv-prakash-putan-on-5-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-munni-devi-vs-shiv-prakash-putan-on-5-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt. Munni Devi vs Shiv Prakash @ Putan on 5 January, 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":"Smt. Munni Devi vs Shiv Prakash @ Putan on 5 January, 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\/smt-munni-devi-vs-shiv-prakash-putan-on-5-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt. Munni Devi vs Shiv Prakash @ Putan on 5 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-munni-devi-vs-shiv-prakash-putan-on-5-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-23T23:49:38+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-munni-devi-vs-shiv-prakash-putan-on-5-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-munni-devi-vs-shiv-prakash-putan-on-5-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt. Munni Devi vs Shiv Prakash @ Putan on 5 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-23T23:49:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-munni-devi-vs-shiv-prakash-putan-on-5-january-2010"},"wordCount":1382,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Allahabad High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-munni-devi-vs-shiv-prakash-putan-on-5-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-munni-devi-vs-shiv-prakash-putan-on-5-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-munni-devi-vs-shiv-prakash-putan-on-5-january-2010","name":"Smt. Munni Devi vs Shiv Prakash @ Putan on 5 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-23T23:49:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-munni-devi-vs-shiv-prakash-putan-on-5-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-munni-devi-vs-shiv-prakash-putan-on-5-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-munni-devi-vs-shiv-prakash-putan-on-5-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt. Munni Devi vs Shiv Prakash @ Putan on 5 January, 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\/174567","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=174567"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/174567\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=174567"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=174567"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=174567"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}