{"id":185862,"date":"2011-04-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-04-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-revision-application-no-60-vs-mr-bd-karia-for-on-25-april-2011"},"modified":"2018-07-08T04:58:43","modified_gmt":"2018-07-07T23:28:43","slug":"civil-revision-application-no-60-vs-mr-bd-karia-for-on-25-april-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-revision-application-no-60-vs-mr-bd-karia-for-on-25-april-2011","title":{"rendered":"Civil Revision Application No. 60 &#8230; vs Mr Bd Karia For on 25 April, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Civil Revision Application No. 60 &#8230; vs Mr Bd Karia For on 25 April, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Kundan Singh,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n\n\n     CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No 60 of 2003\n\n\n     --------------------------------------------------------------\n     DHIRAJLAL PRABHUDAS\nVersus\n     SURENDRAKUMAR NATVARLAL SHAH\n     --------------------------------------------------------------\n     Appearance:\n     1. Civil Revision Application No. 60 of 2003\n          MR HARESH N JOSHI for Petitioner No. 1\n          MR BD KARIA for Respondent No. 1\n     --------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n              CORAM : MR.JUSTICE KUNDAN SINGH\n\n\n              Date of Order: 02\/05\/2003\n\n\nORAL ORDER<\/pre>\n<p>     This revision petition has been filed against the<br \/>\n     judgement and order dated 13th August 1999 passed by the<br \/>\n     Small Causes Court No.4, Ahmedabad whereby the suit of<br \/>\n     the respondent was decreeded and the petitioner being<br \/>\n     defendant was directed to hand over the vacant and<br \/>\n     peaceful possession of the premises to the plaintiff on<br \/>\n     or before 30th September 1999 and the petitioner being<br \/>\n     aggrieed from the judgement of the trial court preferred<br \/>\n     Civil Appeal No. 167 of 1999 before the appellate bench<br \/>\n     of Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad. The appellate Court<br \/>\n     has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the findings<br \/>\n     recorded by the trial court.    However, the petitioner<br \/>\n     tenant was given time to hand over the possession of the<br \/>\n     premises in question by 31st December 2002.\n<\/p>\n<p>     2.The main contention of the learned counsel for<br \/>\n     the petitioner is that the petitioner has raised a<br \/>\n     question regarding the standard rent by the reply to the<br \/>\n     notice for arrears of rent as well as for possession.<br \/>\n     The trial court has not framed any issue on this point<br \/>\n     nor the trial court or the appellate court has recorded<br \/>\n     any finding to that effect. It was also pointed out that<br \/>\n     on earlier occasion, the petitioner filed an application<br \/>\n     for fixation of rent but that application was decided on<br \/>\n     the basis of the compromise arrived at between the<br \/>\n     parties and it was aggrieved that the petitioner will pay<br \/>\n     Rs.125.00 per month to the plaintiff and he will also pay<br \/>\n     the amount of education cess as well as municipal taxes.<br \/>\n     That finding arrived at by the court concerned in 1980<br \/>\n was not adjudicated by the court of law, hence that<br \/>\nfinding would not operate as res judicata or estoppel.<br \/>\nIn that respect, the learned counsel for the petitioner<br \/>\nhas relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1723224\/\">(SHRI) TRAN DEVADI MANDIR TRUST AND OTHERS V. DILIPKUMAR<br \/>\nBABULAL SHAH AND ANOTHER,<\/a> 1984 GLH 259, wherein, it is<br \/>\nobserved that;\n<\/p>\n<p> &#8220;On     perusal of the record, the court came to the<br \/>\n           conclusion that there was no dispute whatsoever<br \/>\n           between the parties with regard to the tenancy or<br \/>\n           with regard to the Standard rate of rent. But a<br \/>\n           fake dispute was created for obtaining a consent<br \/>\n           decree. It would be interesting to note that the<br \/>\n           tenants were inducted in the premises from May 1,<br \/>\n           1974 as disclosed in the applications. Thus in<br \/>\n           the very first week of the tenancy the aforesaid<br \/>\n           applications were filed in two cases and in the<br \/>\n           third case, the application was filed after about<br \/>\n           a month. No exchange of notice appears to have<br \/>\n           taken place between the parties. The date of the<br \/>\n           commencement of the tenancy and the dates of<br \/>\n           filing of the respective application clearly show<br \/>\n           that the parties had adopted a device to invoke<br \/>\n           the jurisdiction of the court and a show was made<br \/>\n           that there was dispute between parties.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>It is also observed that;\n<\/p>\n<p> &#8220;The     decision arrived at by the court in earlier<br \/>\n           proceeding was not a decision based on free   and<br \/>\n           valid consent and was tainted by fraud.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>He also relied on the decision of this Court in<br \/>\nthe case of M\/S. ABDULGANI &amp; CO. V. GULAM HUSSAIN<br \/>\nMOHMADBHAI, 20 GLR PAGE 827, wherein, it is observed<br \/>\nthat;\n<\/p>\n<p> &#8221;   A    consent decree does not operate as res<br \/>\n           judicata because a consent decree is merely the<br \/>\n           record of a contract between the parties to a<br \/>\n           suit to which is superadded the seal of the<br \/>\n           court, and a matter in contest in a suit may<br \/>\n           operate as res judicata only if there is an<br \/>\n           adjudication by the Court.     The Court does not<br \/>\n           decide anything; nor can it be said that a<br \/>\n           decision of the court was implicit in it; and<br \/>\n           that only a decision by the Court can be res<br \/>\n           judicata whether statutory under sec. 11 of the<br \/>\n           Code of Civil Procedure or constructive as a<br \/>\n           matter of public policy on which the entire<br \/>\n         doctrine rests. Such a decree cannot strictly be<br \/>\n        regarded as decision on a matter which was heard<br \/>\n        and finally decided and cannot operate as res<br \/>\n        judicata, such a decree might create an estoppel<br \/>\n        by conduct between the parties but such an<br \/>\n        estoppel must be specifically pleaded.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>3.I have considered the contention raised by the<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the parties in the present case.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.First of all, in the present case an issue was<br \/>\nraised by the petitioner and filed an application for<br \/>\nfixing of standard rent and that application was decided<br \/>\non the basis of the compromise arrived at between the<br \/>\nparties taking Rs.125.00 as rent and the agreement was<br \/>\nalso arrived at regarding the payment of education cess<br \/>\nand other taxes to be paid by the petitioner.   Once the<br \/>\nissue has already been decided either on the basis of the<br \/>\ncompromise arrived at between the parties, or further<br \/>\nleading evidence, that will be deemed to have been<br \/>\ndecided on merits and that issue will be deemed to be an<br \/>\nissue decided by the court of competent jurisdiction<br \/>\nunless it is pleaded by the parties concerned that the<br \/>\ncompromise or the settlement was arrived at by committing<br \/>\nfraud and the compromise was nothing but fake settlement.<br \/>\nIn the present case the petitioner has not pleaded that<br \/>\nthe decision taken on earlier occasion on the basis of<br \/>\nthe compromise arrived at between the parties regarding<br \/>\nthe fixation of rent was obtained on the basis of fraud<br \/>\ncommitted by any party. As such, it cannot be said in<br \/>\nthe facts and circumstances of the case that the decision<br \/>\ntaken by the court having competent jurisdiction was<br \/>\nnullity in view of the fact that it was arrived at and<br \/>\nobtained on the basis of the fraud.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.The second contention of the learned counsel for<br \/>\nthe petitioner is that the petitioner has raised the<br \/>\nquestion regarding the standard rent in reply to the<br \/>\nnotice sent by the plaintiff. Both the parties have read<br \/>\nout the reply in this court, wherein it is mentioned that<br \/>\nthe rent claimed is excessive and this is not standard<br \/>\nrent.    Mere say that it is not a standard rent,<br \/>\nparticularly that standard rent has already been settled<br \/>\nby the Court on the basis of the compromise arrived at<br \/>\nbetween the parties. It cannot be said that there was no<br \/>\nstandard rent at the relevant time. As such the plea is<br \/>\nnot available to the petitioner that there is no standard<br \/>\nrent or the rent being paid is excessive. Both the<br \/>\ncourts have exhaustively considered the       contentions<br \/>\nraised by the learned counsel for the parties and came to<br \/>\nconclusion that the defendant has contended that the rent<br \/>\n of Rs.125.00 per month has already been fixed but that<br \/>\ndoes not include the amount of education cess and other<br \/>\ntaxes.   If the amount of rent or the rate of rent has<br \/>\nalready been admitted by the learned counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioner before the courts below, he cannot agitate<br \/>\nagain before this court.     So far as the payment of<br \/>\neducation cess and other taxes is concerned, in that<br \/>\nrespect, both the parties have arrived at compromise and<br \/>\nthey have settled that amount of education cess and other<br \/>\ntaxes will be borne by the petitioner tenant himself. As<br \/>\nsuch, even no issue has been framed by the trial court,<br \/>\nbut the matter has been considered in view of the<br \/>\nadmissions   made   by   the    learned counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioner. The courts have come to the conclusion that<br \/>\nthe point regarding standard rent has not been raised,<br \/>\neven if it is raised then it will be deemed to have been<br \/>\ndecided by the courts below.        So far as the payment<br \/>\nregarding inclusion or exclusion of the education cess<br \/>\nand the other taxes are concerned, this court has decided<br \/>\nthis issue in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/124226\/\">SHARDABEN M. PATEL HEIRS OF<br \/>\nMAGANLAL MOTIRAM   PATEL    V.      RANJITLAL  MANSUKHLAL<br \/>\n(DECEASED),<\/a> 2002 (2) GLH II 73, holding that; primarily,<br \/>\nit is the duty of the landlord to pay education cess for<br \/>\nsuch property, but there can be agreement between the<br \/>\nlandlord and the opponent for education cess.   If there<br \/>\nis an agreement between the parties that amount of<br \/>\neducation cess and taxes would be borne out by the tenant<br \/>\nthat has to be honoured by the tenant.     As such, this<br \/>\namount, even if it is included in the rent but has<br \/>\nalready been agreed upon by the parties concerned to be<br \/>\nborne out by the petitioner, that argument cannot be<br \/>\nraised again in this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the<br \/>\ncase, I do not find any good reason for interference with<br \/>\nthe concurrent findings arrived at by the Courts below.<br \/>\nAccordingly this revision application is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.As the revision application has been dismissed,<br \/>\nthe application for restitution does not survive and<br \/>\nrejected as not maintainable. Rule is discharged.\n<\/p>\n<p>(Kundan Singh,J)<br \/>\nJayanti*\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Civil Revision Application No. 60 &#8230; vs Mr Bd Karia For on 25 April, 2011 Author: Kundan Singh,&amp;Nbsp; IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No 60 of 2003 &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211; DHIRAJLAL PRABHUDAS Versus SURENDRAKUMAR NATVARLAL SHAH &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211; Appearance: 1. Civil Revision Application No. 60 of 2003 MR HARESH [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-185862","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Civil Revision Application No. 60 ... vs Mr Bd Karia For on 25 April, 2011 - 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\/civil-revision-application-no-60-vs-mr-bd-karia-for-on-25-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Civil Revision Application No. 60 ... vs Mr Bd Karia For on 25 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-revision-application-no-60-vs-mr-bd-karia-for-on-25-april-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-04-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-07T23:28:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"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\/civil-revision-application-no-60-vs-mr-bd-karia-for-on-25-april-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-revision-application-no-60-vs-mr-bd-karia-for-on-25-april-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Civil Revision Application No. 60 &#8230; vs Mr Bd Karia For on 25 April, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-07T23:28:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-revision-application-no-60-vs-mr-bd-karia-for-on-25-april-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1477,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-revision-application-no-60-vs-mr-bd-karia-for-on-25-april-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-revision-application-no-60-vs-mr-bd-karia-for-on-25-april-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-revision-application-no-60-vs-mr-bd-karia-for-on-25-april-2011\",\"name\":\"Civil Revision Application No. 60 ... vs Mr Bd Karia For on 25 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-07T23:28:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-revision-application-no-60-vs-mr-bd-karia-for-on-25-april-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-revision-application-no-60-vs-mr-bd-karia-for-on-25-april-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-revision-application-no-60-vs-mr-bd-karia-for-on-25-april-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Civil Revision Application No. 60 &#8230; vs Mr Bd Karia For on 25 April, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Civil Revision Application No. 60 ... vs Mr Bd Karia For on 25 April, 2011 - 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\/civil-revision-application-no-60-vs-mr-bd-karia-for-on-25-april-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Civil Revision Application No. 60 ... vs Mr Bd Karia For on 25 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-revision-application-no-60-vs-mr-bd-karia-for-on-25-april-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-04-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-07T23:28:43+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-revision-application-no-60-vs-mr-bd-karia-for-on-25-april-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-revision-application-no-60-vs-mr-bd-karia-for-on-25-april-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Civil Revision Application No. 60 &#8230; vs Mr Bd Karia For on 25 April, 2011","datePublished":"2011-04-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-07T23:28:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-revision-application-no-60-vs-mr-bd-karia-for-on-25-april-2011"},"wordCount":1477,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-revision-application-no-60-vs-mr-bd-karia-for-on-25-april-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-revision-application-no-60-vs-mr-bd-karia-for-on-25-april-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-revision-application-no-60-vs-mr-bd-karia-for-on-25-april-2011","name":"Civil Revision Application No. 60 ... vs Mr Bd Karia For on 25 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-04-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-07T23:28:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-revision-application-no-60-vs-mr-bd-karia-for-on-25-april-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-revision-application-no-60-vs-mr-bd-karia-for-on-25-april-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-revision-application-no-60-vs-mr-bd-karia-for-on-25-april-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Civil Revision Application No. 60 &#8230; vs Mr Bd Karia For on 25 April, 2011"}]},{"@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\/185862","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=185862"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/185862\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=185862"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=185862"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=185862"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}