{"id":190633,"date":"2010-12-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-12-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-ajees-vs-s-venkatasamy-naicker-on-13-december-2010"},"modified":"2017-06-29T05:45:11","modified_gmt":"2017-06-29T00:15:11","slug":"abdul-ajees-vs-s-venkatasamy-naicker-on-13-december-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-ajees-vs-s-venkatasamy-naicker-on-13-december-2010","title":{"rendered":"Abdul Ajees vs S.Venkatasamy Naicker on 13 December, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Abdul Ajees vs S.Venkatasamy Naicker on 13 December, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 13\/12\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN\n\nC.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.2133 of 2010\n\nAbdul Ajees\t\t\t\t... Petitioner\n\nVs.\n\n1.S.Venkatasamy Naicker\n2.Sri Rengammal\n3.Seenivasan\t\t\t\t... Respondents\n\nPrayer\n\nCivil Revision Petition is filed under section 115 of the Code of Civil\nProcedure praying to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 09.06.2010\npassed in I.A.No.29 of 2010 in unnumbered A.S. on the file of the learned\nSubordinate Judge, Kovilpatti.\n\t\t\n!For Petitioner\t \t... Mr.S.Pon Senthil Kumaran\n^For Respondent No.1 \t... Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu\n\n********\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>******<br \/>\nINTRODUCTORY:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tThis Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated<br \/>\n09.06.2010 in I.A.No.29 of 2010 in unmbered A.S. on the file of the learned<br \/>\nSubordinate Judge, Kovilpatti, whereby and whereunder, the application filed by<br \/>\nthe petitioner to condone the delay of 613 days in preferring the first appeal<br \/>\nwas dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>FACTUAL MATRIX:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t2. The petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.136 of 2003 before the<br \/>\nlearned District Munsif, Kovilpatti against the respondents, praying for a<br \/>\njudgment and decree of declaration and consequential injunction in respect of<br \/>\nthe suit property. The said suit, on contest, was dismissed as per judgment and<br \/>\ndecree dated 29.04.2008. The petitioner has not filed an appeal within the<br \/>\nstipulated period. Subsequently, he filed an appeal before the learned<br \/>\nSubordinate Judge, Kovilpatti with an application to condone the delay of 613<br \/>\ndays. The said application was registered as I.A.No.29 of 2010.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t3. The petitioner, in his affidavit filed in support of the<br \/>\napplication to condone the delay, submitted that the delay has happened on<br \/>\naccount of his illness and accordingly, prayed for condoning the delay. The<br \/>\npetitioner has also produced a certificate issued by a medical officer to<br \/>\nsubstantiate his contention that he was actually laid up.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t4. The application was opposed by the respondents by filing counter.<br \/>\nAccording to the respondents, they have already initiated criminal proceedings<br \/>\nagainst the petitioner and the matter has come up for trial and it was only at<br \/>\nthat point of time, he has filed the appeal with an application to condone the<br \/>\ndelay and it was made only with an intention to show that the dismissal of the<br \/>\nsuit has not become final.\n<\/p>\n<p>THE JUDGE&#8217;S VIEW:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t5. The learned appellate Judge found that the delay was not<br \/>\nexplained properly. The document stated to have been obtained from a medical<br \/>\nofficer was not supported by the prescription issued by the medical officer and<br \/>\nthe bills issued for purchasing medicines. Therefore, the learned Appellate<br \/>\nJudge disbelieved the medical certificate as well as the reasons advanced by the<br \/>\npetitioner in support of his case for delay. The learned Appellate Judge opined<br \/>\nthat the petitioner has fabricated documents to appear as if he was laid up<br \/>\nduring the period in question and that was the reason for the delay in<br \/>\npreferring the appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>SUBMISSIONS ON THIS REVISION:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that<br \/>\nthe petitioner was laid up on account of his heart disease and the said fact is<br \/>\nborne out by the certificate issued by the Consulting Physician, attached to<br \/>\nPonmalligai Hospital Private Limited, Chennai. The learned counsel further<br \/>\ncontended that the son-in-law of the petitioner died on 24.11.2008 and it was<br \/>\nfollowed by the death of his brother on 12.01.2009. Therefore, he was having<br \/>\nsufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t7. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted<br \/>\nthat though the petitioner has stated that he has undergone surgery, not even a<br \/>\nsingle document was produced to substantiate the said contention. It was the<br \/>\nfurther contention of the learned counsel that a case in C.C.No.200 of 2009 was<br \/>\npending against the petitioner before the learned Magistrate for forgery and it<br \/>\nwas only to make out a case that the issue in respect of fabrication of the<br \/>\ndocument was live that he has filed the appeal with an application to condone<br \/>\nthe delay. According to the learned counsel, there is no bona fides in the<br \/>\ncontention raised by the petitioner and the application was rightly rejected by<br \/>\nthe learned Appellate Judge.\n<\/p>\n<p>ANALYSIS:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t8. The suit in O.S.No.136 of 2003 filed by the petitioner for<br \/>\ndeclaration and injunction was dismissed by the learned District Munsif,<br \/>\nKovilpatti on 29.04.2008. The petitioner has not preferred any appeal within the<br \/>\nstipulated period before the appellate Court. He has filed the application only<br \/>\non 01.02.2010. In support of his application, the petitioner has produced a<br \/>\ndocument dated 18.01.2010 issued by the Consulting Physician of Ponmalligai<br \/>\nHospital Private Limited, Chennai. The certificate was marked before the lower<br \/>\nCourt. The certificate proceeds as if the petitioner was under the treatment of<br \/>\nthe said Physician for the period from December, 2008 to April, 2009. However,<br \/>\nthe period prescribed for filing the appeal got expired even before the<br \/>\ntreatment period. The other reason given by the petitioner pertains to the death<br \/>\nof his son-in-law and brother on 24.11.2008 and 12.01.2009 respectively.<br \/>\nHowever, it is a matter of record that the very appeal was preferred only on<br \/>\n01.02.2010.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t9. The petitioner, in his affidavit filed in support of the<br \/>\napplication, contended that he has undergone surgery and as such, he was not in<br \/>\na position to take steps for filing appeal. However, not even a scrap of paper<br \/>\nwas produced before the lower Court to show that he was given medicines or to<br \/>\nshow the payment made by him for undertaking the treatment or for the surgery.<br \/>\nThis only made the learned Appellate Judge to comment on the certificate issued<br \/>\nby the medical officer.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t10. It is true that the extent of delay is not material and it is<br \/>\nonly the reasons given for the delay that alone are material.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t11. While considering an application like this, the background facts<br \/>\nof the case also assumes significance. The respondents, in their counter-<br \/>\naffidavit filed in I.A.No.29 of 2010, clearly stated the motive in  filing the<br \/>\nappeal with an application to condone the delay. The respondents have preferred<br \/>\na complaint against the petitioner alleging forgery. The civil suit was in<br \/>\nrespect of the very same subject matter, though it was relating to the property.<br \/>\nThe case of forgery came up for consideration before the trial Court. It was<br \/>\nonly during the pendency of the trial in C.C.No.200 of 2009, the petitioner has<br \/>\nfiled the appeal along with I.A.No.29 of 2010. Therefore, the very timing of<br \/>\nfiling application in I.A.No.29 of 2010 clearly shows the real motive in<br \/>\npreferring the appeal at a belated point of time. The petitioner has been<br \/>\nshowing reasons one after another in support of his contention that the<br \/>\ncircumstances were beyond his control and the same alone contributed for the<br \/>\ndelay.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t12. The certificate issued by the medical officer dated 18.01.2010<br \/>\nshows that the petitioner was under his treatment upto April, 2009. The<br \/>\ncertificate further contains an indication that the petitioner was advised to<br \/>\ncontinue the treatment lifelong.  The certificate was issued only for the<br \/>\npurpose of producing before the Court. This is evident from the fact that the<br \/>\ntreatment was for the period upto April, 2009, but the issuance of certificate<br \/>\nwas only in January, 2010.  Case sheet maintained by the hospital was not<br \/>\nproduced. The medical bills and the discharge summary were also not produced.<br \/>\nTherefore, other than the medical certificate issued by the Consulting<br \/>\nPhysician, there was no document produced before the Court to justify the<br \/>\ncontention raised by the petitioner with respect to the delay. Therefore, the<br \/>\nlearned Appellate Judge was perfectly justified in arriving at a conclusion that<br \/>\nthere was absolutely no reason for condoning the delay.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t13. The Supreme Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/902864\/\">Improvement Trust v. Ujagar Singh<\/a> reported<br \/>\nin 2010(6) SCC 786, observed that there is no prescribed straitjacket formula to<br \/>\ncome to the conclusion as to whether sufficient grounds have been made out for<br \/>\ncondoning the delay.  However, it was further held that each case has to be<br \/>\nweighed from its facts and the circumstances in which the party acts and<br \/>\nbehaves.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t14. Therefore, the conduct, behaviour and attitude of the parties<br \/>\nassumes significance in a case like this. The conduct of the petitioner, in the<br \/>\nlight of the parallel proceedings initiated against him in C.C.No.200 of 2009<br \/>\nand the time at which, he has chosen to file the first appeal with an<br \/>\napplication to condone the delay, clearly shows his intention. The learned<br \/>\nAppellate Judge has rightly considered the issue and arrived at a finding that<br \/>\nthe petitioner has not made out a case for condoning the delay. There is no<br \/>\nreason to take a different view in the matter. Therefore, I am inclined to<br \/>\nconfirm the order passed by the learned Appellate Judge.\n<\/p>\n<p>RESULT:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t15. In the upshot, I dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. However,<br \/>\nin the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>SML<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>The Subordinate Judge,<br \/>\nKovilpatti.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Abdul Ajees vs S.Venkatasamy Naicker on 13 December, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13\/12\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.2133 of 2010 Abdul Ajees &#8230; Petitioner Vs. 1.S.Venkatasamy Naicker 2.Sri Rengammal 3.Seenivasan &#8230; Respondents Prayer Civil Revision Petition is filed under section 115 of the Code of [&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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-190633","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Abdul Ajees vs S.Venkatasamy Naicker on 13 December, 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\/abdul-ajees-vs-s-venkatasamy-naicker-on-13-december-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Abdul Ajees vs S.Venkatasamy Naicker on 13 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-ajees-vs-s-venkatasamy-naicker-on-13-december-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=\"2010-12-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-29T00:15:11+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-ajees-vs-s-venkatasamy-naicker-on-13-december-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-ajees-vs-s-venkatasamy-naicker-on-13-december-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Abdul Ajees vs S.Venkatasamy Naicker on 13 December, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-29T00:15:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-ajees-vs-s-venkatasamy-naicker-on-13-december-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1380,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-ajees-vs-s-venkatasamy-naicker-on-13-december-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-ajees-vs-s-venkatasamy-naicker-on-13-december-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-ajees-vs-s-venkatasamy-naicker-on-13-december-2010\",\"name\":\"Abdul Ajees vs S.Venkatasamy Naicker on 13 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-29T00:15:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-ajees-vs-s-venkatasamy-naicker-on-13-december-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-ajees-vs-s-venkatasamy-naicker-on-13-december-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-ajees-vs-s-venkatasamy-naicker-on-13-december-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Abdul Ajees vs S.Venkatasamy Naicker on 13 December, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Abdul Ajees vs S.Venkatasamy Naicker on 13 December, 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\/abdul-ajees-vs-s-venkatasamy-naicker-on-13-december-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Abdul Ajees vs S.Venkatasamy Naicker on 13 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-ajees-vs-s-venkatasamy-naicker-on-13-december-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-12-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-29T00:15:11+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-ajees-vs-s-venkatasamy-naicker-on-13-december-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-ajees-vs-s-venkatasamy-naicker-on-13-december-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Abdul Ajees vs S.Venkatasamy Naicker on 13 December, 2010","datePublished":"2010-12-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-29T00:15:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-ajees-vs-s-venkatasamy-naicker-on-13-december-2010"},"wordCount":1380,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-ajees-vs-s-venkatasamy-naicker-on-13-december-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-ajees-vs-s-venkatasamy-naicker-on-13-december-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-ajees-vs-s-venkatasamy-naicker-on-13-december-2010","name":"Abdul Ajees vs S.Venkatasamy Naicker on 13 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-12-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-29T00:15:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-ajees-vs-s-venkatasamy-naicker-on-13-december-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-ajees-vs-s-venkatasamy-naicker-on-13-december-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-ajees-vs-s-venkatasamy-naicker-on-13-december-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Abdul Ajees vs S.Venkatasamy Naicker on 13 December, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/190633","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=190633"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/190633\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=190633"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=190633"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=190633"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}