{"id":174848,"date":"2010-09-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeepkumar-vs-suseelan-on-22-september-2010"},"modified":"2014-10-20T03:08:00","modified_gmt":"2014-10-19T21:38:00","slug":"pradeepkumar-vs-suseelan-on-22-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeepkumar-vs-suseelan-on-22-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Pradeepkumar vs Suseelan on 22 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Pradeepkumar vs Suseelan on 22 September, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 5499 of 2010(O)\n\n\n1. PRADEEPKUMAR, VAZHUVELIL VEEDU,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. SUSEELAN, ASANTAYYATH VEEDU,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.J.OM PRAKASH\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.K.P.SREEKUMAR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :22\/09\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                            THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.\n                           --------------------------------------\n                             W.P.(C) No.5499 of 2010\n                           --------------------------------------\n                  Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2010.\n\n                                     JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
       Judgment debtor in E.P.No.1 of 2004 in O.S.No.312 of 1999 of the court<\/p>\n
of learned Munsiff, Karunagappally challenges Ext.P8, order dismissing<\/p>\n
E.A.No.228 of 2008 filed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for<\/p>\n
short, “the Code”) to set aside the court auction sale held on 31.01.2008 on the<\/p>\n
ground of alleged non-compliance with Rule 64 of Order XXI of the Code.<\/p>\n
Executing court has dismissed the application on two grounds: firstly, application<\/p>\n
is filed beyond period prescribed under Article 127 of the Limitation Act (for<\/p>\n
short, “the Act:) and, secondly; petitioner has not adduced evidence to show<\/p>\n
value of the property as he claimed. It is contended by learned counsel for<\/p>\n
petitioner\/judgment debtor placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in<\/p>\n
S.Mariyappa (Dead) by Lrs. & Others v. Siddappa and another<\/p>\n
(2004 (3) CTC 671) that non-compliance of Rule 64 of Order XXI of the Code<\/p>\n
affected jurisdiction of the executing court to conduct the sale, sale conducted<\/p>\n
without such compliance is a nullity and could be set aside on an application<\/p>\n
made under Section 47 of the Code the period of limitation of which is governed<\/p>\n
by the residuary Article (Article 137) of the Act. It is contended that even after<\/p>\n
petitioner preferred objection to the draft proclamation sale (DPS) executing<\/p>\n
court has not applied its mind and did not direct respondent to file amended<\/p>\n
proclamation of sale as revealed from the copy of B diary produced in the Writ<\/p>\n
WP(C) No.5499\/2010<\/p>\n
                                         2<\/span><\/p>\n
Petition. It is therefore contended that dismissal of E.A.No.228 of 2008 is not<\/p>\n
correct legally or factually. Learned counsel for respondent has contended that<\/p>\n
the application is hopelessly barred by limitation since on the grounds pleaded,<\/p>\n
the   application though given a label of   Section 47 of the Code is one falling<\/p>\n
under Rule 90 of Order XXI of the Code.      It is contended that no material was<\/p>\n
produced to prove value of land as claimed by petitioner in his objection to the<\/p>\n
DPS. Learned counsel has invited my attention to the relevant records to show<\/p>\n
that petitioner could not have urged that valuation of property is not proper.<\/p>\n
       2.     15 cents belonging to the petitioner was brought up for sale by the<\/p>\n
respondent suggesting its market value as Rs.30,000\/-.         Petitioner preferred<\/p>\n
Ext.P3, objection stating that value of the property is around Rupees four lakhs.<\/p>\n
Respondent produced Ext.R1(d), valuation certificate dated 03.01.2007 issued<\/p>\n
by the Tahsildar stating value of the property as Rs.49,198\/-. It is seen from<\/p>\n
Ext.P5, copy of B diary that after adjournment of the execution petition for<\/p>\n
several days for various reasons the matter came up for hearing on 01.12.2007<\/p>\n
on which day respondent produced Ext.R1(d), valuation certificate          and the<\/p>\n
execution petition was then posted for hearing on 03.12.2007. That day the<\/p>\n
upset price was fixed (Rupees one lakh only) and it was ordered that the<\/p>\n
property shall be proclaimed and sold on 31.01.2008. On 31.01.2008 property<\/p>\n
was sold for Rs.1,00,009\/- and purchased by the respondent as permitted by the<\/p>\n
executing court. Execution petition was posted on 03.03.2008 for confirmation of<\/p>\n
sale.  In the meantime       respondent filed Ext.R1(f)   claiming that even after<\/p>\n
WP(C) No.5499\/2010<\/p>\n
                                        3<\/span><\/p>\n
appropriating the sum of Rs.1,00,009\/- towards the amount due under the<\/p>\n
decree a further sum of Rs.45,820\/- is due from petitioner and the said amount<\/p>\n
may be realised from petitioner and his other assets.     That execution petition<\/p>\n
was objected by petitioner vide Ext.R1(g) wherein he stated that after adjusting<\/p>\n
sale consideration Rs.1,00,009\/- towards balance amount due to respondent he<\/p>\n
has paid Rs.45,820\/- and hence the claim made in Ext.R1(f) is not correct. It is<\/p>\n
while so, that 265 days after the sale on 31.01.2008 petitioner filed E.A.<\/p>\n
No.228 of     2008 to set aside the sale alleging that there was no proper<\/p>\n
application of mind  and non-compliance of Rule 64 of Order XXI of the Code.<\/p>\n
      3.     Rule 90 of Order XXI of the Code enables judgment debtor to<\/p>\n
apply to set aside the sale on material irregularity or fraud in publishing and<\/p>\n
conducting the sale. There is no allegation of fraud so far as the present case is<\/p>\n
concerned. There is also no allegation touching any irregularity in conducting<\/p>\n
the sale.   What remained is whether there is any material irregularity        in<\/p>\n
publishing the sale and whether on the grounds pleaded by petitioner          the<\/p>\n
application came under Section 47 of the Code so that it is governed by Article<\/p>\n
137 of the Act or, it came under Rule 90 of Order XXI of the Code and is<\/p>\n
governed by Article 127 of the Act. In the decision referred to above, reliance is<\/p>\n
placed on the decision in Desh Bandhu Gupta v. N.L.Anand &<\/p>\n
Rajinder Singh<\/a> [(1994) 1 SCC 131]. It was held that a total absence of<\/p>\n
drawing up of proclamation of sale and settlement of its term by judicial<\/p>\n
WP(C) No.5499\/2010<\/p>\n
                                          4<\/span><\/p>\n
application of mind rendered the sale a nullity which is covered by Section 47 of<\/p>\n
the Code. But non-application of mind to the question whether sale of a part of<\/p>\n
the property would satisfy the decree debt is a material irregularity doing<\/p>\n
substantial injury to the judgment debtor attracting Rule 90 of Order XXI of the<\/p>\n
Code. That decision and the decision relied on by learned counsel would show<\/p>\n
that Section 47 of the Code applied to a case of total absence of drawing up of<\/p>\n
proclamation of sale and settlement of its terms by judicial application of mind<\/p>\n
which rendered the sale a nullity.       On the other hand if it is a case of a<\/p>\n
proclamation of sale being drawn up without application of mind as to whether<\/p>\n
sale of a portion of the property is sufficient to discharge the decree debt it is not<\/p>\n
a case of total absence of drawing up of a proclamation of sale but only non-<\/p>\n
application of mind under Rule 64 of Order XXI of the Code in which case even<\/p>\n
as per the decision relied on by learned counsel and the decision in Desh<\/p>\n
Bandhu Gupta’s case (supra) it could only come under Rule 90 of Order XXI of<\/p>\n
the Code. Referring to the decision in Desh Bandhu Gupta’s case (supra) and<\/p>\n
other decisions on the point,      I had occasion to consider this aspect           in<\/p>\n
C.R.P.No.60 of 2010 and vide order dated 30.07.2010 it was held that where<\/p>\n
the allegation was only that proclamation of sale was drawn up without<\/p>\n
application of mind whether sale of a portion of the property is sufficient to<\/p>\n
discharge the decree debt, the case came under Rule 90 of Order XXI of the<\/p>\n
Code. In the present case there is a proclamation of sale drawn up by the<\/p>\n
executing court. No doubt, according to the petitioner it was without application<\/p>\n
WP(C) No.5499\/2010<\/p>\n
                                          5<\/span><\/p>\n
of mind as required under Rule 64 of Order XXI of the Code. The application,<\/p>\n
notwithstanding the label given to it (Section 47) came under Rule 90 of Order<\/p>\n
XXI of the Code governed by Article 127 of the Act. Admittedly the application is<\/p>\n
made beyond 60 days from the date of sale. Hence it is barred by limitation. I<\/p>\n
find no reason to interfere with the finding of executing court in that regard.<\/p>\n
       4.     Next question is whether executing court had applied its mind to<\/p>\n
the matter while fixing upset price. Even before upset price was fixed (as<\/p>\n
Rupees one lakh only) on 03.12.2007             respondent    produced Ext.R1(d),<\/p>\n
valuation certificate where value of the property was assessed by the Tahsildar<\/p>\n
as Rs.49,198\/-. On the side of petitioner, he had not produced any document.<\/p>\n
He did not take out a commission to conduct a local investigation as to value of<\/p>\n
the property. What was available was only the bald statement in his objection to<\/p>\n
the draft proclamation of sale that property is valued at Rupees four lakhs. It is<\/p>\n
taking into account valuation given by the Tahsildar in Ext.R1(d) that executing<\/p>\n
court fixed the upset price at Rupees one lakh.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       5.     Reliance is placed by learned counsel for petitioner on Ext.P4,<\/p>\n
objection preferred by the respondent on the trial side to an application to<\/p>\n
substitute the property attached. It would appear that another item of property<\/p>\n
was attached before judgment and petitioner wanted that property to be<\/p>\n
substituted by the    property which is sold in auction.      In Ext.P4, objection,<\/p>\n
respondent (according to the petitioner) has stated that value          assessed by<\/p>\n
WP(C) No.5499\/2010<\/p>\n
                                           6<\/span><\/p>\n
Tahsildar   is Rs.2,50,000\/-.       Ext.P4 is   explained by learned counsel for<\/p>\n
respondent that it was concerning the property sought to be substituted and<\/p>\n
certain other items.     No attempt was made by petitioner to prove value of<\/p>\n
property as claimed by him even in E.A.No.228 of 2008. In the circumstances<\/p>\n
executing court found that there was nothing on record to show that property was<\/p>\n
valued as claimed by petitioner. It is with Ext.R1(d), valuation certificate on<\/p>\n
record that executing court, as against value of property suggested by<\/p>\n
respondent has fixed the upset price a Rupees one lakh. It cannot be said that<\/p>\n
there was no application of mind. I find little reason to interfere.<\/p>\n
       Writ Petition fails. It is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                  THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
\n                                                          Judge.\n<\/p>\n
cks<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Pradeepkumar vs Suseelan on 22 September, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 5499 of 2010(O) 1. PRADEEPKUMAR, VAZHUVELIL VEEDU, … Petitioner Vs 1. SUSEELAN, ASANTAYYATH VEEDU, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.J.OM PRAKASH For Respondent :SRI.K.P.SREEKUMAR The Hon’ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH Dated :22\/09\/2010 O R D E R […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-174848","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPradeepkumar vs Suseelan on 22 September, 2010 - 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\/pradeepkumar-vs-suseelan-on-22-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pradeepkumar vs Suseelan on 22 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeepkumar-vs-suseelan-on-22-september-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-10-19T21:38:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pradeepkumar-vs-suseelan-on-22-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pradeepkumar-vs-suseelan-on-22-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pradeepkumar vs Suseelan on 22 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-19T21:38:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pradeepkumar-vs-suseelan-on-22-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1529,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pradeepkumar-vs-suseelan-on-22-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pradeepkumar-vs-suseelan-on-22-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pradeepkumar-vs-suseelan-on-22-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Pradeepkumar vs Suseelan on 22 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-19T21:38:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pradeepkumar-vs-suseelan-on-22-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pradeepkumar-vs-suseelan-on-22-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pradeepkumar-vs-suseelan-on-22-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pradeepkumar vs Suseelan on 22 September, 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":"Pradeepkumar vs Suseelan on 22 September, 2010 - 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\/pradeepkumar-vs-suseelan-on-22-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pradeepkumar vs Suseelan on 22 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeepkumar-vs-suseelan-on-22-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-10-19T21:38:00+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeepkumar-vs-suseelan-on-22-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeepkumar-vs-suseelan-on-22-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pradeepkumar vs Suseelan on 22 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-19T21:38:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeepkumar-vs-suseelan-on-22-september-2010"},"wordCount":1529,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeepkumar-vs-suseelan-on-22-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeepkumar-vs-suseelan-on-22-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeepkumar-vs-suseelan-on-22-september-2010","name":"Pradeepkumar vs Suseelan on 22 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-19T21:38:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeepkumar-vs-suseelan-on-22-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeepkumar-vs-suseelan-on-22-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeepkumar-vs-suseelan-on-22-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pradeepkumar vs Suseelan on 22 September, 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\/174848","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=174848"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/174848\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=174848"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=174848"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=174848"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}