{"id":178956,"date":"2010-10-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-khandelwal-vs-smt-malti-jain-on-25-october-2010"},"modified":"2018-05-09T14:32:39","modified_gmt":"2018-05-09T09:02:39","slug":"sandeep-khandelwal-vs-smt-malti-jain-on-25-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-khandelwal-vs-smt-malti-jain-on-25-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Sandeep Khandelwal vs Smt. Malti Jain on 25 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Sandeep Khandelwal vs Smt. Malti Jain on 25 October, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>                                                         W.P. No.14966.10\n\n\n              Writ Petition No. 14966 of 2010\n25\/10\/2010\n     Shri     Shobhitaditya,     learned       counsel      for     the\npetitioner.\n     Heard on admission.\n     This      petition     under     Article     227       of      the\nConstitution of India is directed against the order\ndated 12-04-2010 passed by First Additional District\nJudge, Hoshangabad, in Regular Civil Suit No. 53-\nA\/08. By the impugned order, an application preferred\nby the petitioner\/defendant under Section 10 of the\nCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to\nas 'the C.P.C.') for staying the proceedings in the civil\nsuit has been rejected.\n     The      suit   in   question   is   at    the   instance        of\nrespondents seeking eviction and arrears of rent<\/pre>\n<p>against the petitioner\/defendant in respect of 630 sq.<br \/>\nft. of the dwelling house bearing Nazul Sheet No. 14,<br \/>\nPlot No. 43\/1 at Surajganj, Itarsi.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The petitioner herein, in the said suit filed an<br \/>\napplication under section 10 of the C.P.C. for staying<br \/>\nthe proceedings on the ground that premises in<br \/>\nquestion being a part of dwelling house admeasuring<br \/>\n1260 sq. ft. in respect whereof one Umakant Rawat<br \/>\npreferred a Civil suit vide R.C.S. No. 11-A\/08 on<br \/>\n                                                           W.P. No.14966.10<\/p>\n<p>07-08-2005 for partition, mesne profit and recovery of<br \/>\narrears of rent by impleading respondents 1 to 3 as<br \/>\ndefendants No. 15 to 17 and impleading the petitioner<br \/>\nas defendant No. 19.          It was urged that the said suit<br \/>\nproperty is a joint property of said Umakant Rawat<br \/>\nand defendants No. 14 and 15 (in R.C.S. No. 11-A of<br \/>\n2008), who, i.e. defendants No. 14 and 15 therein, as<br \/>\nalleged,    unauthorizedly           sold     the      property        to<br \/>\nrespondents       herein.     It    was     contended        by      the<br \/>\npetitioner herein before the trial Court in furtherance<br \/>\nof application under section 10 of the C.P.C. that, in<br \/>\nthe said civil suit the trial Court framed specific issues<br \/>\nregarding joint ownership of plaintiff and defendants<br \/>\nNo. 13 and 14 and the question regarding entitlement<br \/>\nof plaintiff therein to recover arrears of rent and the<br \/>\ntrial Court decided         the issues regarding ownership<br \/>\nand   entitlement     to    recover        arrears   of   rent      and<br \/>\ndismissed the said civil suit vide judgment and decree<br \/>\ndated 20-12-2008. The said judgment and decree it is<br \/>\nurged now forms subject matter of challenge in First<br \/>\nAppeal No. 179\/09.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The     trial   Court        while    dwelling      upon       the<br \/>\ncontentions     put   forth    by     the    petitioner\/defendant<br \/>\nobserved that the suit preferred by said Umakant<br \/>\nRawat which now forms the subject matter of First<br \/>\n                                                     W.P. No.14966.10<\/p>\n<p>Appeal No. 179\/09 was for partition, mesne-profit and<br \/>\nrecovery of arrears of rent. W hereas, the suit in<br \/>\nquestion is for eviction and arrears of rent wherein<br \/>\nsaid Umakant Rawat is not a party.           The trial Court<br \/>\nthus observed that the matter in issue in suit in<br \/>\nquestion is not directly and substantially in issue in<br \/>\nthe   previously    instituted    suit   which    was   at     the<br \/>\ninstance of Umakant Rawat. The trial Court found that<br \/>\nthe principle as is laid down under section 10 of the<br \/>\nC.P.C. being not attracted, declined to stay the<br \/>\nproceeding of the suit in question.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Section 10 of the C.P.C. stipulates that &#8221; no<br \/>\ncourt shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which<br \/>\nthe matter in issue is also directly and substantially in<br \/>\nissue in a previously instituted suit between the same<br \/>\nparties, or between parties under whom they or any of<br \/>\nthem claim litigating under the same title where such<br \/>\nsuit is pending in the same or any other Court in India<br \/>\nhaving jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in<br \/>\nany Court beyond the limits of India established or<br \/>\ncontinued by the Central Government and having like<br \/>\njurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>      The object as is apparent from the aforesaid<br \/>\nprovision   is     to   prevent     Courts   of    concurrent<br \/>\njurisdiction from simultaneously drawing two parallel<br \/>\n                                                        W.P. No.14966.10<\/p>\n<p>suit in respect of the same or any issue and to avoid<br \/>\nrecording conflicting findings on issue which are<br \/>\ndirectly     and    substantially    in   issue   in   previously<br \/>\ninstituted suit. In this context regard can be had of the<br \/>\njudgment by the Supreme Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/631068\/\">National Institute<br \/>\nof   Mental        Health   and     Neuro    Sciences       v.     C.<br \/>\nParameshwara (AIR<\/a> 2005 SC 242) wherein their<br \/>\nLordships were pleased to observe :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>      &#8220;8 .   The object underlying section 10 is to<br \/>\n      prevent Courts of concurrent jurisdiction<br \/>\n      from simultaneously trying two parallel suits<br \/>\n      in respect of the same matter in issue. The<br \/>\n      object underlying section 10 is to avoid two<br \/>\n      parallel trials on the same issue by two<br \/>\n      Courts and to avoid recording of conflicting<br \/>\n      findings on issues which are directly and<br \/>\n      substantially in issue in previously instituted<br \/>\n      suit. The language of section 10 suggests<br \/>\n      that it is referable to a suit instituted in the<br \/>\n      civil Court and it cannot apply to proceedings<br \/>\n      of other nature instituted under any other<br \/>\n      statute. The object of section 10 is to<br \/>\n      prevent Courts of concurrent jurisdiction<br \/>\n      from simultaneously trying two parallel suits<br \/>\n      between the same parties in respect of the<br \/>\n      same matter in issue. The fundamental test<br \/>\n      to attract section 10 is, whether on final<br \/>\n      decision being reached in the previous suit,<br \/>\n      such decision would operate as res judicata<br \/>\n      in the subsequent suit. Section 10 applies<br \/>\n      only in cases where the whole of the subject<br \/>\n      matter in both the suits is identical. The key<br \/>\n      words in section 10 are &#8220;the matter in issue<br \/>\n      is directly and substantially in issue&#8221; in the<br \/>\n      previous instituted suit. The words &#8220;directly<br \/>\n      and substantially in issue&#8221; are used in<br \/>\n                                                       W.P. No.14966.10<\/p>\n<p>      contra-distinction to the words &#8220;incidentally<br \/>\n      or collaterally in issue&#8221;. Therefore, section<br \/>\n      10 would apply only if there is identity of the<br \/>\n      matter in issue in both the suits, meaning<br \/>\n      thereby, that the whole of subject matter in<br \/>\n      both the proceedings is identical. &#8220;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     Thus, unless there is an identity of the matter in<br \/>\nissue in both the suits before Court of concurrent<br \/>\njurisdiction, the principle of section 10 of the C.P.C.<br \/>\ndoes not get attracted.\n<\/p>\n<p>     During the course of hearing learned counsel for<br \/>\nthe petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment in<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1895857\/\">Sheela and others v. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash<\/a>;<br \/>\nAIR 2002 SC 1264, <a href=\"\/doc\/5192\/\">Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai<br \/>\nBahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal<\/a>; AIR 1962 SC 527 and<br \/>\nthe judgment by learned Single Judge of this Court in<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1910459\/\">Poonamchand       v.   Murti    Madanmohanji      and      others<\/a><br \/>\n[2007 (3) M.P.L.J. 340].\n<\/p>\n<p>     In the case of Manohar Lal Chopra (supra) it was<br \/>\nobserved that the question of issuing an order to a<br \/>\nparty restraining him from proceeding with any other<br \/>\nsuit in a regularly constituted Court of law deserves<br \/>\ngreat care and consideration and such an order is not<br \/>\nto be made unless absolutely essential for the ends of<br \/>\njustice.    (paragraph   28).    It   was   further   observed<br \/>\ntherein :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>       &#8220;39. The suit at Indore which had been<br \/>\n       instituted later, could be stayed in view<br \/>\n                                            W.P. No.14966.10<\/p>\n<p>of s.10 of the Code. The provisions of<br \/>\nthat section are clear, definite       and<br \/>\nmandatory.     A    Court    in    which a<br \/>\nsubsequent suit      has been filed is<br \/>\nprohibited from proceeding with the trial<br \/>\nof    that  suit   in   certain   specified<br \/>\ncircumstances. W hen there is a special<br \/>\nprovision in      the    Code of       Civil<br \/>\nProcedure       for dealing with        the<br \/>\ncontingencies of two such suits being<br \/>\ninstituted, recourse to the inherent<br \/>\npowers under s. 151 is not justified. The<br \/>\nprovisions of s. 10      do    not become<br \/>\ninapplicable on a Court holding that the<br \/>\npreviously instituted suit is a vexatious<br \/>\nsuit or has been instituted in violation of<br \/>\nthe terms of the contract. It does not<br \/>\nappear correct to say, as has been said<br \/>\nin Ram Bahadur v. Devidayal Ltd. (1)<br \/>\nthat the Legislature did not contemplate<br \/>\nthe provisions of s. 10 to apply when the<br \/>\npreviously instituted suit be held to be<br \/>\ninstituted in those circumstances. The<br \/>\nprovisions of s. 35A indicate that the<br \/>\nLegislature was aware of false or<br \/>\nvexatious claims or defences being<br \/>\nmade, in suits, and accordingly provided<br \/>\nfor compensatory cost. The Legislature<br \/>\ncould have therefore provided for the<br \/>\nnon-application of the provisions of s. 10<br \/>\nin those circumstances, but it did not.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Further, s. 22 of the Code provides for<br \/>\nthe transfer of a suit to another Court<br \/>\nwhen a suit which could be instituted in<br \/>\nany one of two or more Courts is<br \/>\ninstituted in one of such Courts. In<br \/>\nview of the provisions of this section, it<br \/>\nwas open to the respondent to apply<br \/>\nfor the transfer of the suit at Asansol<br \/>\nto the Indore Court and, if the suit had<br \/>\nbeen transferred to the Indore Court,<br \/>\n                                                  W.P. No.14966.10<\/p>\n<p>      the two suits could have been tried<br \/>\n      together. It is clear,       therefore, that<br \/>\n      the Legislature had contemplated the<br \/>\n      contingency of two suits with respect to<br \/>\n      similar reliefs being instituted and of the<br \/>\n      institution of a suit in one Court when it<br \/>\n      could also be instituted in another Court<br \/>\n      and it be preferable, for certain reasons,<br \/>\n      that the suit be tried in that other Court.&#8221;<br \/>\nThe observation made by their lordships was in a<br \/>\npeculiar facts of the case therein contemplating an<br \/>\norder under Section 10 of the C.P.C.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The principles laid down therein though not<br \/>\ndisputed, however, the same are not attracted in the<br \/>\nfacts of the present case.\n<\/p>\n<p>     <a href=\"\/doc\/1895857\/\">In Sheela and others v. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem<br \/>\nPrakash<\/a> (supra) the issue which had cropped up for<br \/>\nconsideration was in the context of the provision<br \/>\nunder section 12 (1) (a) of the Madhya Pradesh<br \/>\nAccommodation     Control    Act   as   to   whether    while<br \/>\nseeking an ejectment on the ground of bonafide<br \/>\nrequirement under clause (f) the land lord is required<br \/>\nto allege and prove not only that he is a land lord but<br \/>\nalso that he is the owner of the premises. In our<br \/>\nconsidered opinion the principle of law laid down in<br \/>\nthe said context is of no assistance to the petitioner in<br \/>\nrespect of adjudication of application under section 10<br \/>\nof the C.P.C. as has cropped up in the present matter.<br \/>\nRegarding the judgment in <a href=\"\/doc\/1910459\/\">Poonamchand v. Murti<br \/>\n                                              W.P. No.14966.10<\/p>\n<p>Madanmohanji and others<\/a> (supra) suffice it would be<br \/>\nto say that the facts therein were satisfying the<br \/>\nrequirement of section 10 which led the learned<br \/>\nSingle Judge to stay the subsequent suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In the case at hand admittedly earlier suit was at<br \/>\nthe instance of one Umakant Rawat who had filed suit<br \/>\nfor partition, mesne-profit and arrears of rent whereas<br \/>\nthe suit in question is at the instance of respondents<br \/>\nfor eviction and arrears of rent wherein said Umakant<br \/>\nRawat is not impleaded as a party.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In view whereof we do not perceive any illegality<br \/>\nin the approach of the trial Court in rejecting the<br \/>\napplication under section 10 of the C.P.C. preferred<br \/>\nby the petitioner\/defendant seeking stay of Civil Suit<br \/>\nNo. 53-A\/08.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In the result the petition fails and is hereby<br \/>\ndismissed. However, no costs.\n<\/p>\n<pre>     (AJIT SINGH)               (SANJAY YADAV)\n        JUDGE                       JUDGE\nSC\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madhya Pradesh High Court Sandeep Khandelwal vs Smt. Malti Jain on 25 October, 2010 W.P. No.14966.10 Writ Petition No. 14966 of 2010 25\/10\/2010 Shri Shobhitaditya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on admission. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 12-04-2010 passed by First 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":[8,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-178956","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madhya-pradesh-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Sandeep Khandelwal vs Smt. Malti Jain on 25 October, 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\/sandeep-khandelwal-vs-smt-malti-jain-on-25-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sandeep Khandelwal vs Smt. Malti Jain on 25 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-khandelwal-vs-smt-malti-jain-on-25-october-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=\"2010-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-09T09:02:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-khandelwal-vs-smt-malti-jain-on-25-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-khandelwal-vs-smt-malti-jain-on-25-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sandeep Khandelwal vs Smt. Malti Jain on 25 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-09T09:02:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-khandelwal-vs-smt-malti-jain-on-25-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1665,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madhya Pradesh High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-khandelwal-vs-smt-malti-jain-on-25-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-khandelwal-vs-smt-malti-jain-on-25-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-khandelwal-vs-smt-malti-jain-on-25-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Sandeep Khandelwal vs Smt. Malti Jain on 25 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-09T09:02:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-khandelwal-vs-smt-malti-jain-on-25-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-khandelwal-vs-smt-malti-jain-on-25-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-khandelwal-vs-smt-malti-jain-on-25-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sandeep Khandelwal vs Smt. Malti Jain on 25 October, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sandeep Khandelwal vs Smt. Malti Jain on 25 October, 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\/sandeep-khandelwal-vs-smt-malti-jain-on-25-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sandeep Khandelwal vs Smt. Malti Jain on 25 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-khandelwal-vs-smt-malti-jain-on-25-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-09T09:02:39+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-khandelwal-vs-smt-malti-jain-on-25-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-khandelwal-vs-smt-malti-jain-on-25-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sandeep Khandelwal vs Smt. Malti Jain on 25 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-09T09:02:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-khandelwal-vs-smt-malti-jain-on-25-october-2010"},"wordCount":1665,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madhya Pradesh High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-khandelwal-vs-smt-malti-jain-on-25-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-khandelwal-vs-smt-malti-jain-on-25-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-khandelwal-vs-smt-malti-jain-on-25-october-2010","name":"Sandeep Khandelwal vs Smt. Malti Jain on 25 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-09T09:02:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-khandelwal-vs-smt-malti-jain-on-25-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-khandelwal-vs-smt-malti-jain-on-25-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-khandelwal-vs-smt-malti-jain-on-25-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sandeep Khandelwal vs Smt. Malti Jain on 25 October, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/178956","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=178956"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/178956\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=178956"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=178956"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=178956"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}