{"id":187597,"date":"2008-12-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-g-ravishankar-vs-nagaveni-on-19-december-2008"},"modified":"2015-08-24T03:36:18","modified_gmt":"2015-08-23T22:06:18","slug":"h-g-ravishankar-vs-nagaveni-on-19-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-g-ravishankar-vs-nagaveni-on-19-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"H G Ravishankar vs Nagaveni on 19 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
H G Ravishankar vs Nagaveni on 19 December, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: B.S.Patil<\/div>\n
 4V.sv;'i:%*i2%svst'\u00a3'\u00a7~Ire%A,  ~ _____ .. \u00bb\n\n A.G1*;:~ .40 Y  --.\n\n_ .  : \u00bb- \u00ab .4; V ..,L.T.KAR1,EI~,\n \" xSiNC\u00a7E'. DECEASED BY LRS.\n\n  ca)' 'SEIDHARSHANA KARLE,\n\n\" I153 MAHENDRA KARLE,\n\nW? 12584 [2008\n\nIN THE HIGH mum' 014' KARNATAKA AT BANGALoz2:E:.T.\nDATED THIS THE 19111 DAY 0? DECEMBER,  \" \nBEFORE  \"  \nTHE HGWBLE MR.JUsTIg:\u00e9B;s ESTIL'  _5   H\nwar!' mnnon No.12__\u00a7__ 84\u00a3\u00bb\u00a7\u20acO\u00ae_ . u \" \n\nBETWEEN:\n\n1. H.G.RAVISI-XANKAR,   :\ns\/o BASAVE Gowm,   '\nAGE 48 YEARS,   g  _  - \nMAJOR,COF'F'F}'E P;,AN'rER,=:  'V _ \nTHIPPANAHA.!.~.J\u00a3        .\ncH1cKMAGALo:_eE_---- 5'?-7.10-1j:.  V'\n\n2. A.B.MALLIK:'sRJifJNA;f*i  .\nS\/O BASAVE GCWI3_P!,p * _ \nACEESOYEARS',    ' _\nMAJOR, (:<)F~FEE'?;,A3s1TER-,.___  ''\nTH1MPPANA\u00a7iALI,1 ESTATE, \nCHICKMAGALOEEI5 .-, 577'v.10'i.\n\n15,50 \\'.KL3OM\ufb01'.NNA,\n\n'MA-JOE,--S@NU\u00a7?ALL1,\nKOPPA TALUK, \nCHf$__KM\u00a3;GAI,}.ORE DEST.\n\n s\/0 LATE L.'I'.KAR1.E.\n\nS\/O LATE L.'I'.KARLE.\n\nGARMENT FACTORY OWNERS,\nNC). 151, INDUSTRLAL SABAR,\nYASHWANTHPIJR,\nBANGALORE - 22.\n\n\n\nW? 12584 \/2008\n\n5. GOWRAMMA,\n\nW] O M.P.ESWARAPPA,\n\nAGE 70 YEARS,\n\nMAJOR, NO. 107,\n\n71'" CROSS, LOWER PALACE,\nORCHARD,\n\nBANGALORE -- 93. ..RmRjG!\u00a7ERR._\n\n(BY SR} ESHWARAPPA, SR. COUNSEL FOR\nR.G.i-IALESHA AND K,G.NAY1'~'s.K, AIDVJ\n\nAND:\n\nNAGAVEN1,\nAGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,\n\nD\/O SUBBARAYAPPA, -. -\n\nR\/A G0'mGERE VILLAGE,  '\nBANNERGHATTA   ,    :\nBANGALORE S0U'EfH'1f;;\u00a5aLL?K,'-A  _  " \nBANGALORE. "       ..RESPONDENT\n\n(BY SR1 H.K,.\u00a5{ENCH_EGQwDA;'aijv\ufb01 ~  \n\nTHIS RE'I'IT1o.:~:\u00a7 .1,s<RILR,13.,L:N:)RR ARTICLES 225 85 227 OF'\nTHE cowswmmon or%~.;NR1R.1_=-R.a_Y1NG TO QUASH ANNEX-G THE\nORDER OF '\u00a3'HE"DISTRIC\u00bb'1'.JUD(}i\u00a3;' BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,\nBANGALORE, r::r_. 22.0'?._2098 EN_\u00a7R.A.NO.18G\/2007 85 ETC.\n\n':fRz"S RmmC:~11 'HA\\riNG BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS\n\nSCOMINC: OISLFOR PRON'O'U'NCEMENT, THIS BAY, THE COURT MADE\n\n' 'THE FQLLO\u00a7?}?~IQE\u00ab..._\n\nORDER\n<\/pre>\n
  1. ”  \u00a3?\u00a7?i*if..R};\u00a7\u00a3:tition, peti\ufb01oners an: cha\ufb02cngm g the order<\/p>\n
 dated  passed in R.A.Na.180\/200?. Petiticmers have<\/p>\n
 V   for a writ of mandamus to direct the couxt below not<\/p>\n
 ac’:  \ufb01nther in the matter in R.A.No.180\/2007 as the<\/p>\n
  ‘   is time barmd.\n<\/p>\n
\ufb01g<\/p>\n
we 12584\/2008<\/p>\n
2. Pe\ufb01\ufb01oners 1 to 5 herein are respendents in the lower<\/p>\n
Appellate Court. The respondent in this writ pe\ufb01tion.j'””S{n3t.<\/p>\n
Nagaveni has \ufb01led R.A.No.180\/2007 on the \ufb01le  V.<\/p>\n
District & Sessions Judge, Bangalozne Rural  ‘  <\/p>\n
the onder dated 0140.200′? passed b:g* fl:1;e’! tggldz,  :Je\u00e9ige”‘.<\/p>\n
(Sr.Dn.), Bangalore Rural District in <\/p>\n
the plaint. As there was a Idefay sf  the appeal,
\nthe appellant-respondent  Lgiigplica\ufb01on under
\nSection 5 of the   of delay.\n<\/p>\n
The msponden\u00a7”ne;eiLs;:~    in support of the
\napplications  “o-‘f in the af\ufb01davit \ufb01led,
\nshe has ” \ufb01xowledge of the fact that the<\/p>\n
appeal was  Vic; within 30 days and that she was<\/p>\n
__1;nah1e..  ‘vcentacf’  to \ufb01le the appeal. She has<\/p>\n
 assexiegfilgat the appeal was filed within the pexiod at<\/p>\n
 __t”Eie”V..cIate of her knowledge. She has further<\/p>\n
V VV stated {hat   applica\ufb01on was not allowed and the delay was<\/p>\n
 zeetndoneel, it W131 cause serious injury to her interest,<\/p>\n
 such untoici haxdshiy or irreparable loss will be<\/p>\n
VT  to the zespondent.\n<\/p>\n
gx.\n<\/p>\n
we 12584\/2008<\/p>\n
Call on for orders Iegaxtling the compliance of
\nOrder 39 Rule 32\u00bb. and Sec. 340 ope. Also \ufb01les one<\/p>\n
more list with authorities.\n<\/p>\n
Call on by 22.07.2003.’<\/p>\n
4. It is seen from the Ieeoxtis  of <\/p>\n
lower Appellate Court that \ufb021eV”i’e\u00bb.V::f3e*ti\ufb02onere   an
\napplication seeking disposoi~.._of   time.<\/p>\n
\nAnother application under    was filed by\nrespondents 9,      into the alleged\n<\/pre>\n
o\ufb01ence committed’  as per Sections 181
\nand 193 of”IPC.   in this regard to the
\nMagisi1ate::”.i:o”  ” xeiceordance with law. This<\/p>\n
application ie’ mode  in the ai\ufb01davit \ufb01led by the<\/p>\n
 _I:1exfeinmv.eee1;i;ig.condonation of delay, she had made<\/p>\n
 therefore she was liable to be punished for<\/p>\n
t11e”‘oo”\u00e9ace”i1:3:Lcier’ See-tion 181 read with Section 1931130.<\/p>\n
.”‘:’~..V  xeppearing for the petitioners herein insisted<\/p>\n
:,t’_heiV”‘1oWer Appellate Court to pass orders on the<\/p>\n
  opp\ufb01o\u00e9t\ufb01on med by him in IA No.3 seeking to initiate action to<\/p>\n
T  against the appellant alleging the offence under<\/p>\n
”  181 and Section 193 me. Several rulings were cited by<\/p>\n
i  theiea\ufb02eritigiiieeide the matter. It is this order that is
\n‘ciiallenged i1v_3_i*tl3.i.s writ petition.<\/p>\n
  Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners<\/p>\n
.   that the lower Appellate Court ought to have<\/p>\n
  ismissed the appeal as barxed by time having regard to the<\/p>\n
WP 12534\/2008
\n6<\/span><\/p>\n
the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners herein before
\nthe lower Appellate Court. Noting the contentions of both the
\nparties, the court below has found that the application IA.~.I\u00a7o.3
\nwas based upon the service of caveat petition on the
\nherein, (appe\ufb02ant before the lower Appe\ufb02ate   ‘<\/p>\n
evidenced by the postal aeknow1edgment.._ As’   it it<\/p>\n
was that despite service oi’   had
\nsworn to a false a\ufb01davit  ” application for
\ncondonation of deIay._stati\u00bb11vgt–t1iat. eiie ietiowledge of the
\nBassi\ufb02g of the      ~\u00bb <\/p>\n
6. In he_rW    seems to have<\/p>\n
denied the gag Vjcaveat’-pe\u00a5;ition on her. It is in this<\/p>\n
background  ,the=Iov;.4’er  Court has opined that the ‘
\nmatter geqqirezihi evidet1ce’  merely on oral arguments
\n otiestiongs of mrxot be answered. The court below<\/p>\n
 V”iti_i\ufb01t to provide opportunity to lead evidence<\/p>\n
WP l2584\/2008<\/p>\n
7<\/span>
\nstatement made by the appellant herself before the lower
\nAppellate Court in the amdavit \ufb01led in support of the<\/p>\n
application for condonation of delay. He has xelied on the<\/p>\n
judgment in the case of  Ru<\/p>\n
L1Z.AVA’I’1′, AIR 1953 Games? 119, to oonten\u00e9i <\/p>\n
law has no excuse and delay “oa’;a;1ot Be: coadot1eei'<*\u00bbo.n ethat <\/p>\n
ground. Reliance is also \u00bbvtl1e_\u00bb_\u00bbdeoisiot1\ufb01of Apex
\nCourt in the case of cums vs scum
\nnvmm BANK L.m., are zoos  that the date
\nof knowledge of  lleij\u00e9jlellliejiiesented thmugh a
\nlawyer is of no  judgments in the case
\nof   zmueoos me 2559; myaosze
\nvs mmaooea let'  zoos my 2553; and in the<\/p>\n
case of"'\u00a7UIl?1CI\u00a7AL coemmnozv as 02.3. vs.<\/p>\n
  db ANR., AIR' 2008 c.4Lcm*m 175,<\/p>\n
  at  in support of his contention that non\u00bb<\/p>\n
  exp1anal\u00a7m1,ol_' by green' ' g cogent reasons and by assignm' g<\/p>\n
-. eu\ufb01cient” Veause will be fatal to the appellant who has<\/p>\n
  the court belatedly. It is also submitted by hiin that<\/p>\n
K  the appellant was served with the caveat petition on<\/p>\n
 D::e.1o.2oo’? as was clear from the postal acknowledgment and<\/p>\n
Ba<\/p>\n
we 12534 \/2008<\/p>\n
the appeal \ufb01led after two months on 18.12.2007 beyond the<\/p>\n
period of 30 days was barred by time.<\/p>\n
8. Counsel appearing for the iespondent <\/p>\n
contended that this Writ petition is premature    <\/p>\n
passed by the court below on the appiie\u00e9ttiog  <\/p>\n
the delay. He has further  mat’e\u00ab3ene\u00e9n  ebsence V<\/p>\n
of notice to all the msfnoedentslpdddfdej\u00e9pppetitioneteddd heiwein have
\ninsisted for passing an otdei  \ufb01led under
\nSection 340 of    He has placed
\nreliance on  !3.’R1S1EtNA aeomzv GHOSH
\nvs SURAPiiT3′  1925 eancm-as 684(1),
\nand mm or SATYANARAYANA, AIR 2007<\/p>\n
SC 906.\n<\/p>\n
  heeled’-th_e___Iea1ned Counsel for the parties and on<\/p>\n
  the materials on record particularly the<\/p>\n
 by the lower Appe\ufb01ate Court, I<\/p>\n
am of the “eo:n.side1ed View that this Writ petition. is<\/p>\n
H K   The court below has not passed any order on the<\/p>\n
japplioation \ufb01led under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking<\/p>\n
T  of delay. Since the petitioners herein have \ufb01led an<\/p>\n
  “appiieation under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Pmceduze<\/p>\n
\ufb01e<\/p>\n
W? 12584 \/2008<\/p>\n
and have iasisted the court below to pass orders on the same,
\nthe court below has passed the oider holding that the question<\/p>\n
whether the respondent herein had made a false stateaieizt in<\/p>\n
her a\ufb01davit stating that she had no H1\u00abf;1;;ow1e\u00ab;igev’    ” ” 2<\/p>\n
passed in the suit was a matter to be\u00bb._enqaix\u00a7ed<\/p>\n
an enquiry. The court below <\/p>\n
pmviding an opportlmity to the  to   in the
\nmatter, it was impmger to   application
\n\ufb01led under Section       A\u00bb V t<\/p>\n
10. There is   below has directed
\nthe parties to.  t$1eV”\u00bbaj3t)1ica\ufb01on \ufb01led seeking
\noondonatiotitttot’  the enquiry is found
\nnecessary V*t1’ie–~V.ap1o1\u00a3ca\ufb01on \ufb02ed under Section 340<\/p>\n
of the Code of  Whether the cause shown<\/p>\n
‘vb3*.Athe’:o.:tes;3ontient “cotationation of delay of 30 days in \ufb01ling<\/p>\n
  ist\ufb01ieient or whether the appeal deserved to be<\/p>\n
t   dis\ufb01issed  by time is a matter that the court ‘below<\/p>\n
\ufb01s to coasider after hearing both the parties. The judment<\/p>\n
  by the zeamed Senior Counsel in support of his<\/p>\n
 ___”oontentio11 that the explana\ufb01on o\ufb01ened does not constitute<\/p>\n
. .  A ‘4” cEnt cause cannot be accepted at this stage as it is for the<\/p>\n
KK<\/p>\n
WP 12584 \/2003
\n10<\/span><\/p>\n
lower Appellate Court to examine the fact situations and
\nconsider the matter in the light of the explanation offemd.
\nWithout the lower Appellate Court passing any order o1ff1″tl;1e {A<\/p>\n
meal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, this <\/p>\n
pronounce on the merits of the said IA. Therefqie,   <\/p>\n
petitioxs. ‘being miscouccivcd deservesi\u00e9 3.2::  V\ufb02\u00e9rntrner,<\/p>\n
the writ petition is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
 I  <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court H G Ravishankar vs Nagaveni on 19 December, 2008 Author: B.S.Patil 4V.sv;’i:%*i2%svst’\u00a3’\u00a7~Ire%A, ~ _____ .. \u00bb A.G1*;:~ .40 Y –. _ . : \u00bb- \u00ab .4; V ..,L.T.KAR1,EI~, ” xSiNC\u00a7E’. DECEASED BY LRS. ca)’ ‘SEIDHARSHANA KARLE, ” I153 MAHENDRA KARLE, W? 12584 [2008 IN THE HIGH mum’ 014′ KARNATAKA AT BANGALoz2:E:.T. DATED […]<\/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":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-187597","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nH G Ravishankar vs Nagaveni on 19 December, 2008 - 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\/h-g-ravishankar-vs-nagaveni-on-19-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"H G Ravishankar vs Nagaveni on 19 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-g-ravishankar-vs-nagaveni-on-19-december-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-12-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-23T22:06:18+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\\\/h-g-ravishankar-vs-nagaveni-on-19-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/h-g-ravishankar-vs-nagaveni-on-19-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"H G Ravishankar vs Nagaveni on 19 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-23T22:06:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/h-g-ravishankar-vs-nagaveni-on-19-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1206,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/h-g-ravishankar-vs-nagaveni-on-19-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/h-g-ravishankar-vs-nagaveni-on-19-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/h-g-ravishankar-vs-nagaveni-on-19-december-2008\",\"name\":\"H G Ravishankar vs Nagaveni on 19 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-23T22:06:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/h-g-ravishankar-vs-nagaveni-on-19-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/h-g-ravishankar-vs-nagaveni-on-19-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/h-g-ravishankar-vs-nagaveni-on-19-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"H G Ravishankar vs Nagaveni on 19 December, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"H G Ravishankar vs Nagaveni on 19 December, 2008 - 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\/h-g-ravishankar-vs-nagaveni-on-19-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"H G Ravishankar vs Nagaveni on 19 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-g-ravishankar-vs-nagaveni-on-19-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-23T22:06:18+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\/h-g-ravishankar-vs-nagaveni-on-19-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-g-ravishankar-vs-nagaveni-on-19-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"H G Ravishankar vs Nagaveni on 19 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-23T22:06:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-g-ravishankar-vs-nagaveni-on-19-december-2008"},"wordCount":1206,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-g-ravishankar-vs-nagaveni-on-19-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-g-ravishankar-vs-nagaveni-on-19-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-g-ravishankar-vs-nagaveni-on-19-december-2008","name":"H G Ravishankar vs Nagaveni on 19 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-23T22:06:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-g-ravishankar-vs-nagaveni-on-19-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-g-ravishankar-vs-nagaveni-on-19-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-g-ravishankar-vs-nagaveni-on-19-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"H G Ravishankar vs Nagaveni on 19 December, 2008"}]},{"@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\/187597","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=187597"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187597\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=187597"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=187597"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=187597"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}