{"id":187651,"date":"2008-07-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhakt-radha-mohan-vs-hazin-bibi-khairun-nissa-amp-anr-on-11-july-2008-2"},"modified":"2016-04-28T03:48:44","modified_gmt":"2016-04-27T22:18:44","slug":"bhakt-radha-mohan-vs-hazin-bibi-khairun-nissa-amp-anr-on-11-july-2008-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhakt-radha-mohan-vs-hazin-bibi-khairun-nissa-amp-anr-on-11-july-2008-2","title":{"rendered":"Bhakt Radha Mohan vs Hazin Bibi Khairun Nissa &amp;Amp; Anr on 11 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Patna High Court &#8211; Orders<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Bhakt Radha Mohan vs Hazin Bibi Khairun Nissa &amp;Amp; Anr on 11 July, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA\n\n                         C.R. No.1536 of 2007\n                        BHAKT RADHA MOHAN\n                                Versus\n                   HAZIN BIBI KHAIRUN NISSA &amp; ANR\n                                 With\n                          C.R. No.982 of 2008\n                        BHAKT RADHA MOHAN\n                                Versus\n                   HAZIN BIBI KHEIRUN NISSA &amp; ANR\n\n                                  -----------\n<\/pre>\n<p>2   11.7.2008         Heard Counsel for the defendant tenant petitioner.<\/p>\n<p>                      The present cases are a classic example of abuse of<\/p>\n<p>                process of the Court at the instance of the petitioner.<\/p>\n<p>                       The petitioner in the first civil revision application C.R.<\/p>\n<p>                No. 1536\/2007 has assailed the impugned order of the Court<\/p>\n<p>                below dated 5.7.2007 whereby and whereunder the petition<\/p>\n<p>                filed by him in an eviction suit under B.B.C. Act seeking recall<\/p>\n<p>                of the witnesses of plaintiff landlord opposite party for their<\/p>\n<p>                cross examination, has been rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>                      The Court below has in fact analyzed the whole aspect<\/p>\n<p>                of the matter in great detail in the impugned order and after<\/p>\n<p>                its perusal, this Court can only say that no civil litigation can<\/p>\n<p>                come to an end till a litigating party has ultimately decided to<\/p>\n<p>                call it a day. This is apparent from the fact that despite<\/p>\n<p>                repeated indulgence given by the Court below to the Counsel<\/p>\n<p>                for the defendant-petitioner, he did not choose to cross-<\/p>\n<p>                examine p.ws. 3, 4 &amp; 5 till the date, the evidence of the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                         2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>plaintiff was closed. The Court below in this regard has<\/p>\n<p>referred to the order dated 9.3.2005, 10.3.2005, 11.3.2005,<\/p>\n<p>16.3.2005 and 17.3.2005 to support its view that the<\/p>\n<p>defendant-petitioner before this Court was purposely delaying<\/p>\n<p>the disposal of the suit. He has also referred to the fact that<\/p>\n<p>against an order dated 9.3.2005 of the court below, the<\/p>\n<p>petitioner had moved this Court in civil revision application<\/p>\n<p>no. 651\/2005 and there also this Court in its order had<\/p>\n<p>recorded that the petitioner was purposely delaying the<\/p>\n<p>disposal of the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>      From a perusal of a copy of the order dated 8.4.2005<\/p>\n<p>passed in Civil Revision Application No. 651\/2005 such<\/p>\n<p>delaying tactics of the petitioner is itself established in as<\/p>\n<p>much on the earlier occasion this court had been constrained<\/p>\n<p>to observe and record that :-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>      &#8220;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;After hearing the learned counsel for the<br \/>\n      parties and after perusing the materials on<br \/>\n      record, it is quite clear that the Eviction Suit had<br \/>\n      been   filed   as       far    back   as   on   12.2.2001<br \/>\n      whereafter        the         defendant-petitioner   had<br \/>\n      appeared on 2.3.2001 and filed his written<br \/>\n      statement on 31.5.2001 and since then the<br \/>\n      Eviction Suit is pending for disposal and it was<br \/>\n      only after about three years that the issues were<br \/>\n      settled on 23.3.2004. Even thereafter the matter<br \/>\n      was delayed and only when this Court, vide<br \/>\n      order dated 31.1.2005 passed in Civil Revision<br \/>\n      No. 1660 of 2004, directed the learned court<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                       3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      below to expedite the disposal of the Eviction Suit<br \/>\n      that the hearing of the suit started. But thereafter<br \/>\n      the   defendant-petitioner   raised   an   objection<br \/>\n      against admission of documents filled in the court<br \/>\n      as far back as on 24.7.2004. It is also clear that<br \/>\n      the evidence of the plaintiffs have already been<br \/>\n      closed<br \/>\n             It is apparent from the materials on record<br \/>\n      that the defendant-petitioner is using all means<br \/>\n      to delay the disposal of the suit due to which the<br \/>\n      learned court below is facing difficulty to expedite<br \/>\n      the disposal of the suit as per earlier order of this<br \/>\n      Court. This would be apparent from the fact that<br \/>\n      the defendant has submitted a list of ninetyfive<br \/>\n      witnesses and the type of witnesses he wants to<br \/>\n      depose on his behalf would be apparent from the<br \/>\n      fact that the first person on the list is the counsel<br \/>\n      appearing for the plaintiffs&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>      This Court would find that even thereafter a lapse of two<\/p>\n<p>years the petitioner and\/or his counsel had continued with<\/p>\n<p>the same delaying approach and the prayer by the petitioner<\/p>\n<p>to recall the witness of the plaintiff after closure of evidence of<\/p>\n<p>the petitioner was a deliberate attempt to forestall the<\/p>\n<p>proceedings of an eviction suit under B.B.C. Act. It is really<\/p>\n<p>unfortunate to note that even the counsel for the petitioner<\/p>\n<p>has become party to such delaying tactics and his proximity<\/p>\n<p>with the petitioner has crossed all norms of professional<\/p>\n<p>etiquette in as much as he has cited himself to be first of 95<\/p>\n<p>witnesses on behalf of the defendant petitioner. This Court<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                      4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>would refrain from making any comment on the conduct of<\/p>\n<p>the counsel for the petitioner but would definitely remind him<\/p>\n<p>that he belongs to a noble profession which requires him to<\/p>\n<p>withdraw from a case in which he finds his professional and<\/p>\n<p>personal interest overlapping each other. Be that it may the<\/p>\n<p>impugned order refusing to recall the witnesses of the plaintiff<\/p>\n<p>for the reasons mentioned therein does not suffer from any<\/p>\n<p>jurisdictional error and consequently this court would find no<\/p>\n<p>reason to interfere in the impugned order dated 5.7.2007.<\/p>\n<p>        It has to be noted that after being unsuccessful in two<\/p>\n<p>earlier civil revision applications before this Court namely<\/p>\n<p>Civil Revision Application No. 1660\/2004 disposed of on<\/p>\n<p>31.1.2005 directing the Court below to expedite the hearing of<\/p>\n<p>the suit and Civil Revision Application No. 651\/2005, yet<\/p>\n<p>again directing the Court below by an order dated 8.4.2005 to<\/p>\n<p>expedite the disposal of the suit without allowing unnecessary<\/p>\n<p>delaying the matter, the present civil revision application<\/p>\n<p>against the order dated 5.7.2007 was filed on 30.7.2007 and<\/p>\n<p>no attempt was made for early hearing of this case C.R. no.<\/p>\n<p>1536\/2007 and when the Court below had rejected the prayer<\/p>\n<p>of the defendant petitioner by an order dated 28.4.2008<\/p>\n<p>refusing any further adjournment on the ground of pendency<\/p>\n<p>of C.R. 1536 of 2007, after awaiting the order of this Court in<\/p>\n<p>Civil Revision Application No. 1536\/2007 for almost one year,<\/p>\n<p>the petitioner has filed the second Civil Revision application<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                         5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>assailing the aforesaid impugned order dated 28.4.2008 which<\/p>\n<p>is the subject matter of Civil Revision Application No.<\/p>\n<p>982\/2008. The reasons given therein for not adjourning the<\/p>\n<p>hearing of the Eviction Suit are wholly justified and in keeping<\/p>\n<p>with the spirit of summary trial under B.B.C. Act. Thus court<\/p>\n<p>does not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order<\/p>\n<p>dated    28.04.2008     and    thus    even     this   Civil    Revision<\/p>\n<p>application must be held to be wholly frivolous, filed with the<\/p>\n<p>same aim and objective to keep the eviction suit pending for<\/p>\n<p>ever.\n<\/p>\n<p>            This court would also find that Eviction Suit, being<\/p>\n<p>of the year 2001 has not yet been disposed of despite repeated<\/p>\n<p>direction of this Court in the orders dated 31.01.2005 and<\/p>\n<p>08.04.2005 in Civil Revision Application No. 1660\/2004 and<\/p>\n<p>Civil   Revision      Application     No.   651\/2005.          In   such<\/p>\n<p>circumstances,        this    Court     while      dismissing        the<\/p>\n<p>aforementioned both the civil revision applications would<\/p>\n<p>direct the Court below to take up the hearing on day-to-day<\/p>\n<p>basis and to ensure that the suit itself is disposed of within a<\/p>\n<p>period of six months from the date of receipt\/production of<\/p>\n<p>copy of this order.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Having regard to the conduct of the                defendant-<\/p>\n<p>petitioner, this Court had proposed to impose an exemplary<\/p>\n<p>cost of Rs. 25,000\/- to be realized from the defendant for his<\/p>\n<p>dubious conduct in delaying the disposal of the eviction suit<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                             6<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      for a period of more than seven years but keeping in view the<\/p>\n<p>      request of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a<\/p>\n<p>      poor tenant and would be compelled to abandon the suit itself<\/p>\n<p>      instead of praying the cost of Rs. 25,000\/-, this court by way<\/p>\n<p>      of its disapproval of the conduct of the petitioner would award<\/p>\n<p>      a cost of Rs. 2500\/- to be paid by the petitioner to the plaintiff<\/p>\n<p>      opposite party within a period of three months from the date<\/p>\n<p>      of receipt\/production of a copy of this order and a receipt<\/p>\n<p>      showing payment of cost to be filed by the petitioner in the<\/p>\n<p>      court below.\n<\/p>\n<p>            With the aforesaid observations and directions both the<\/p>\n<p>      Civil Revision applications are dismissed.<\/p>\n<pre>Rsh                                              (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Patna High Court &#8211; Orders Bhakt Radha Mohan vs Hazin Bibi Khairun Nissa &amp;Amp; Anr on 11 July, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1536 of 2007 BHAKT RADHA MOHAN Versus HAZIN BIBI KHAIRUN NISSA &amp; ANR With C.R. No.982 of 2008 BHAKT RADHA MOHAN Versus HAZIN BIBI KHEIRUN NISSA &amp; [&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":[8,27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-187651","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-patna-high-court-orders"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Bhakt Radha Mohan vs Hazin Bibi Khairun Nissa &amp;Amp; Anr on 11 July, 2008 - 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\/bhakt-radha-mohan-vs-hazin-bibi-khairun-nissa-amp-anr-on-11-july-2008-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bhakt Radha Mohan vs Hazin Bibi Khairun Nissa &amp;Amp; Anr on 11 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhakt-radha-mohan-vs-hazin-bibi-khairun-nissa-amp-anr-on-11-july-2008-2\" \/>\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=\"2008-07-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-27T22:18:44+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhakt-radha-mohan-vs-hazin-bibi-khairun-nissa-amp-anr-on-11-july-2008-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhakt-radha-mohan-vs-hazin-bibi-khairun-nissa-amp-anr-on-11-july-2008-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bhakt Radha Mohan vs Hazin Bibi Khairun Nissa &amp;Amp; Anr on 11 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-27T22:18:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhakt-radha-mohan-vs-hazin-bibi-khairun-nissa-amp-anr-on-11-july-2008-2\"},\"wordCount\":1256,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Patna High Court - Orders\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhakt-radha-mohan-vs-hazin-bibi-khairun-nissa-amp-anr-on-11-july-2008-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhakt-radha-mohan-vs-hazin-bibi-khairun-nissa-amp-anr-on-11-july-2008-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhakt-radha-mohan-vs-hazin-bibi-khairun-nissa-amp-anr-on-11-july-2008-2\",\"name\":\"Bhakt Radha Mohan vs Hazin Bibi Khairun Nissa &amp;Amp; Anr on 11 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-27T22:18:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhakt-radha-mohan-vs-hazin-bibi-khairun-nissa-amp-anr-on-11-july-2008-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhakt-radha-mohan-vs-hazin-bibi-khairun-nissa-amp-anr-on-11-july-2008-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhakt-radha-mohan-vs-hazin-bibi-khairun-nissa-amp-anr-on-11-july-2008-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bhakt Radha Mohan vs Hazin Bibi Khairun Nissa &amp;Amp; Anr on 11 July, 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":"Bhakt Radha Mohan vs Hazin Bibi Khairun Nissa &amp;Amp; Anr on 11 July, 2008 - 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\/bhakt-radha-mohan-vs-hazin-bibi-khairun-nissa-amp-anr-on-11-july-2008-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bhakt Radha Mohan vs Hazin Bibi Khairun Nissa &amp;Amp; Anr on 11 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhakt-radha-mohan-vs-hazin-bibi-khairun-nissa-amp-anr-on-11-july-2008-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-27T22:18:44+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhakt-radha-mohan-vs-hazin-bibi-khairun-nissa-amp-anr-on-11-july-2008-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhakt-radha-mohan-vs-hazin-bibi-khairun-nissa-amp-anr-on-11-july-2008-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bhakt Radha Mohan vs Hazin Bibi Khairun Nissa &amp;Amp; Anr on 11 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-27T22:18:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhakt-radha-mohan-vs-hazin-bibi-khairun-nissa-amp-anr-on-11-july-2008-2"},"wordCount":1256,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Patna High Court - Orders"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhakt-radha-mohan-vs-hazin-bibi-khairun-nissa-amp-anr-on-11-july-2008-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhakt-radha-mohan-vs-hazin-bibi-khairun-nissa-amp-anr-on-11-july-2008-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhakt-radha-mohan-vs-hazin-bibi-khairun-nissa-amp-anr-on-11-july-2008-2","name":"Bhakt Radha Mohan vs Hazin Bibi Khairun Nissa &amp;Amp; Anr on 11 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-27T22:18:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhakt-radha-mohan-vs-hazin-bibi-khairun-nissa-amp-anr-on-11-july-2008-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhakt-radha-mohan-vs-hazin-bibi-khairun-nissa-amp-anr-on-11-july-2008-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhakt-radha-mohan-vs-hazin-bibi-khairun-nissa-amp-anr-on-11-july-2008-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bhakt Radha Mohan vs Hazin Bibi Khairun Nissa &amp;Amp; Anr on 11 July, 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\/187651","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=187651"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187651\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=187651"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=187651"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=187651"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}