{"id":174729,"date":"2002-02-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-02-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/simrat-katyal-vs-virender-katyal-on-4-february-2002"},"modified":"2016-05-28T23:22:32","modified_gmt":"2016-05-28T17:52:32","slug":"simrat-katyal-vs-virender-katyal-on-4-february-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/simrat-katyal-vs-virender-katyal-on-4-february-2002","title":{"rendered":"Simrat Katyal vs Virender Katyal on 4 February, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Simrat Katyal vs Virender Katyal on 4 February, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 2002 IIIAD Delhi 341<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: R Jain<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: R Jain<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>R.C. Jain, J. <\/p>\n<p>1. By means of this petition under Order 227<br \/>\nof the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the<br \/>\nvalidity of order dated 7.12.98 passed by the learned<br \/>\nAdditional District Judge, Delhi, thereby disposing of<br \/>\nthe objections of the petitioner against the report of<br \/>\nthe local Commissioner dated 26.5.1998.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. The relevant facts leading to the present<br \/>\npetition in brief are that a suit for perpetual<br \/>\ninjunction filed by the petitioner herein against the<br \/>\nrespondent restraining the defendant from interfering<br \/>\nwith and obstructing the use and enjoying her portion<br \/>\nof house bearing No. 21, Bungalow Road, Delhi and also<br \/>\nfrom preventing her to have access to and enjoying the<br \/>\nuse of garage and servant rom with rear courtyard<br \/>\ntill such time and alternate garage block and servant<br \/>\nquarter is provided by the respondent in terms of<br \/>\nMemorandum of Understanding dated 30.4.90 (in short<br \/>\nMoU) is pending before the learned trial court. After<br \/>\nthe defendant-respondent had offered to construct the<br \/>\ngarage cum servant quarter block or to bear the cost<br \/>\nof its construction vide an order dated 19.5.1998, the<br \/>\nlearned trial court appointed Shri Ramesh Kumar Junior<br \/>\nEngineer from M.C.D. as local commissioner with the<br \/>\ndirection to go to the spot for inspection and to<br \/>\nsuggest the place for construction of<br \/>\ngarage-cum-servant quarter in conformity with the<br \/>\nbuilding bye laws of the MCD. The above named local<br \/>\nCommissioner inspected the site and submitted his<br \/>\nreport dated 26.5.1998. The salient features of the<br \/>\nsaid report of the local Commissioner are as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The total area of plot is<br \/>\n1250 sq, yards (1045.125 sq.mtrs.).<br \/>\nThe permissible ground coverage is 400<br \/>\nsq.mtrs. as per Master Plan 2001 and<br \/>\nits amendment dated 15.5.1995. At<br \/>\npresent the existing Ground Coverage<br \/>\nincluding existing garage block<br \/>\n(having 2 garage, both WC, of total<br \/>\nground coverage of 43.64 sq.mtrs.) is<br \/>\n358.06 M. So the balance Ground<br \/>\nCoverage is only left 41.96 sq.mtrs.\n<\/p>\n<p>As per Layout Plan of MCE<br \/>\nscheme No. 1, Kamla Nagar, Jawahar<br \/>\nNagar, also as confirmed from Town<br \/>\nPlanning Deptt., M.C.D., no garage<br \/>\nblock\/set backs are shown in the said<br \/>\nLayout servant quarters above it, are<br \/>\nexisting in combination with plot<br \/>\nNo. 20. So, no further garage with<br \/>\nservant quarters above it, is<br \/>\npermissible in the set backs (set<br \/>\nbacks as marked in attached plan) as<br \/>\nper M.P.-2001.\n<\/p>\n<p>Now if applicant desire<br \/>\nfurther covered parking area, as per<br \/>\nBuilding Bye Laws 83, the same can be<br \/>\ntaken in the attached form with the<br \/>\nmain building block without infringing<br \/>\nventilation etc. to the existing<br \/>\naccommodation, subject to the<br \/>\ncondition i.e. the total covered area<br \/>\nshould not exceed to permissible<br \/>\nGround Coverage as mentioned above.<br \/>\nHowever total F.A.R. (Floor area ratio<br \/>\ni.e. Total Coverage on all floor)<br \/>\ni.e. 1000 sq.mtrs. allows for<br \/>\nconstruction of servant quarters above<br \/>\nthe existing garage block in<br \/>\naccordance with the M.P. 2001.\n<\/p>\n<p>Further for sanction of the<br \/>\nsame, the applicants have to submit<br \/>\ntheir detail building plans as<br \/>\nrequired Under Section 333, 334, 335of DMC Act, 1957. Building Bye Laws<br \/>\n83, Zonal Regulation, Master Plan<br \/>\n2001, with the office of Executive<br \/>\nEngineer (Building) H.Q., M.C.D., Town<br \/>\nHall, Delhi-110006. The Building<br \/>\nplans so submitted will be considered<br \/>\non merits for Sanction by the<br \/>\ncompetent authority of M.C.D.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>3. The petitioner-plaintiff assailed the said<br \/>\nreport of the local commissioner inter-alia by raising<br \/>\nthe objections that the report of the local<br \/>\nCommissioner was absolutely vague and non-specific in<br \/>\nas much as the local Commissioner has failed to state<br \/>\nin categorical terms if construction of another<br \/>\ngarage-cum-servant quarter block would be permissible<br \/>\nthough he indicted that no garage-cum-servant quarter<br \/>\nblock was permissible in the set back but has failed to<br \/>\nindicate whether construction of such a garage-cum-servant<br \/>\nquarter block in addition to the one existing<br \/>\nin the building was permissible at all; the local<br \/>\nCommissioner failed to take into account the sanctioned<br \/>\nbuilding plan and the existing building plan as also<br \/>\nthe completion certificate; the local Commissioner has<br \/>\nexceeded his brief by suggesting a site for &#8220;uncovered<br \/>\nparking area&#8221; adjacent to the main building block<br \/>\nwithout specifying the area in which garage-cum-servant<br \/>\nquarter block similar to the exiting once could be<br \/>\nconstructed in conformity with the Building Bye Laws<br \/>\nand lastly the local Commissioner has failed to point<br \/>\nout the deviation from the sanctioned plan in the<br \/>\nexisting building which is a significant fact and that<br \/>\nthe report has been made in the most casual manner and<br \/>\nit does not serve the purpose for which the local<br \/>\nCommissioner was appointed. The reply to the said<br \/>\nobjections was filed on behalf of the respondent<br \/>\nthereby denying that there were any sufficient ground<br \/>\nfor setting aside the report of the local Commissioner<br \/>\nor there was any scope for further directions to the<br \/>\nlocal Commissioner to make certain clarifications as<br \/>\nwas sought for by the petitioner. The learned trial<br \/>\ncourt by means of the aforesaid order has dismissed the<br \/>\nobjections of the petitioner against the report of the<br \/>\nlocal Commissioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>4. I have heard Shri Sudhir K. Makkar,<br \/>\nlearned counsel representing the petitioner and Shri<br \/>\nArun Khosla, Advocate representing the respondent and<br \/>\nhave given by thoughtful consideration to their<br \/>\nrespective submissions. The short question to be<br \/>\nanswered is as to whether on the face of the facts,<br \/>\ncircumstances and material available on record the<br \/>\nreport of the local Commissioner is liable to be set<br \/>\naside. The learned counsel for the petitioner has<br \/>\nassailed the report of the local Commissioner primarily<br \/>\non the ground that the local Commissioner had not done<br \/>\nthe task entrusted to him in a proper manner and has<br \/>\nexceeded his brief firstly by not specifying whether it<br \/>\nwas permissible to have a garage-cum-servant quarter<br \/>\nblock on the rear setback of the premises similar to<br \/>\nthe one existing in the portion of the defendant having<br \/>\nregard to the Building Bye Laws of the MCD and secondly<br \/>\nhaving suggested a mode for the construction of a cover<br \/>\nparking adjacent to the main building which was not<br \/>\nasked from him. The submission has merits. The local<br \/>\nCommissioner was directed to make inspection of the<br \/>\npremises with a view to suggest the place for<br \/>\nconstruction of a garage-cum-servant quarter block, so<br \/>\nideally the local Commissioner should have confined his<br \/>\ntask in suggesting the place for construction of a<br \/>\ngarage-cum-servant quarter block which was in<br \/>\nconformity with the Building Bye Laws of the MCD if<br \/>\nthat was possible. The local Commissioner has<br \/>\nreflected on his aspect in para 1 and 2 of the report<br \/>\nand ideally he should have stopped on that without<br \/>\ngoing into the question as to whether a covered parking<br \/>\ncould be constructed adjacent to the main building and<br \/>\nsuggesting that if the applicant so desired and further<br \/>\nsuggesting that the applicant have to submit their<br \/>\ndetailed building plans as required under Section 333,<br \/>\n334 and 335 of the DMC Act 1957 to the MCD for sanction<br \/>\nby the competent authority. This part of the report of<br \/>\nthe local Commissioner and the above suggestions made<br \/>\nby him was unwarranted and beyond the purview of his<br \/>\ninquiry as entrusted to him by the learned trial court<br \/>\nand is, therefore, unsolicited\/unwarranted. If relied<br \/>\nand acted upon this may cause prejudice to the<br \/>\npetitioner. This court is, therefore, of the<br \/>\nconsidered view that this part of the report of the<br \/>\nlocal Commissioner is to be ignored and can not be<br \/>\nallowed to be used by any of the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>5. In the result this petition is partly<br \/>\nallowed and the impugned order of the learned<br \/>\nAdditional District Judge dated 7.12.1998 is hereby set<br \/>\naside and the objection of the petitioner to the report<br \/>\nof the local Commissioner dated 26.5.98 are hereby<br \/>\nallowed to the extent that only the report\/observations<br \/>\nof the local Commissioner as contained in paragraph 1<br \/>\nand 2 of the report shall form part of the record and<br \/>\nthose containing in the later paragraphs shall not be<br \/>\nconsidered, relied and acted upon by the court. With<br \/>\nthese observations the petition stands disposed of. No<br \/>\norder as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Simrat Katyal vs Virender Katyal on 4 February, 2002 Equivalent citations: 2002 IIIAD Delhi 341 Author: R Jain Bench: R Jain JUDGMENT R.C. Jain, J. 1. By means of this petition under Order 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the validity of order dated 7.12.98 passed by the learned Additional District [&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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-174729","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-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>Simrat Katyal vs Virender Katyal on 4 February, 2002 - 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\/simrat-katyal-vs-virender-katyal-on-4-february-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Simrat Katyal vs Virender Katyal on 4 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/simrat-katyal-vs-virender-katyal-on-4-february-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-28T17:52:32+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=\"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\\\/simrat-katyal-vs-virender-katyal-on-4-february-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/simrat-katyal-vs-virender-katyal-on-4-february-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Simrat Katyal vs Virender Katyal on 4 February, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-28T17:52:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/simrat-katyal-vs-virender-katyal-on-4-february-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1341,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/simrat-katyal-vs-virender-katyal-on-4-february-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/simrat-katyal-vs-virender-katyal-on-4-february-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/simrat-katyal-vs-virender-katyal-on-4-february-2002\",\"name\":\"Simrat Katyal vs Virender Katyal on 4 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-28T17:52:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/simrat-katyal-vs-virender-katyal-on-4-february-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/simrat-katyal-vs-virender-katyal-on-4-february-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/simrat-katyal-vs-virender-katyal-on-4-february-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Simrat Katyal vs Virender Katyal on 4 February, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Simrat Katyal vs Virender Katyal on 4 February, 2002 - 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\/simrat-katyal-vs-virender-katyal-on-4-february-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Simrat Katyal vs Virender Katyal on 4 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/simrat-katyal-vs-virender-katyal-on-4-february-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-28T17:52:32+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/simrat-katyal-vs-virender-katyal-on-4-february-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/simrat-katyal-vs-virender-katyal-on-4-february-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Simrat Katyal vs Virender Katyal on 4 February, 2002","datePublished":"2002-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-28T17:52:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/simrat-katyal-vs-virender-katyal-on-4-february-2002"},"wordCount":1341,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/simrat-katyal-vs-virender-katyal-on-4-february-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/simrat-katyal-vs-virender-katyal-on-4-february-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/simrat-katyal-vs-virender-katyal-on-4-february-2002","name":"Simrat Katyal vs Virender Katyal on 4 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-28T17:52:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/simrat-katyal-vs-virender-katyal-on-4-february-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/simrat-katyal-vs-virender-katyal-on-4-february-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/simrat-katyal-vs-virender-katyal-on-4-february-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Simrat Katyal vs Virender Katyal on 4 February, 2002"}]},{"@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\/174729","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=174729"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/174729\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=174729"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=174729"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=174729"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}