{"id":198247,"date":"2006-02-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-02-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syed-nusarathullah-vs-natarajan-on-13-february-2006"},"modified":"2015-10-01T06:17:01","modified_gmt":"2015-10-01T00:47:01","slug":"syed-nusarathullah-vs-natarajan-on-13-february-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syed-nusarathullah-vs-natarajan-on-13-february-2006","title":{"rendered":"Syed Nusarathullah vs Natarajan on 13 February, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Syed Nusarathullah vs Natarajan on 13 February, 2006<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 13\/02\/2006  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN          \n\nCRP.(NPD) No.58 of 2006  \nand \nC.M.P.No.439 of 2006 \nand \nV.C.M.P.No.22 of 2006 \n\nSyed Nusarathullah                     ....     Petitioner                         Vs.\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. Natarajan\n2. A.Visalakshi Ammal \n3. A.Nithyanandan \n4. A.Dhandapani \n5. A.Bhjojarajan\n6. A.Gopalakrishnan \n7. A.Nandakumar  \n8. A.Sukumaran  \n9. A.Selvaraj                           ...   Respondents\n\n        PRAYER:  Civil Revision Petition filed  under  Section  115  of  Civil\nProcedure Code  against the fair and decretal order, dated 29.12.2005, made in\nI.A.No.632  of  2005  in  O.S.No.2209 of 1993 on the file of Second Additional\nDistrict Munsif Court, Coimbatore.\n\n!For petitioner :  Mr.  B.Ramamurthy\n\n^For respondent:  Mr.N.Mani\n\n:O R D E R \n<\/pre>\n<p>                The Civil Revision Petition is filed praying to set aside  the<br \/>\nfair  and  decretal  order,  dated  29.12.2005,  passed  by the learned Second<br \/>\nAdditional District Munsif, Coimbatore, in I.A.No.632 of 2005  in  O.S.No.2209<br \/>\nof 1993.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.      Heard  the  learned  counsel for the petitioner as well as the<br \/>\nrespondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.      The suit in O.S.No.2209 of 1993 was filed by the  Respondents\/<br \/>\nplaintiffs  before the Court of the District Munsif, Coimbatore, praying for a<br \/>\ndecree of permanent injunction restraining the 3rd  Defendant  in  any  manner<br \/>\naltering  the  physical  features  of  the suit property, mandatory injunction<br \/>\ndirecting the 3rd Defendant to remove his belongings kept in Item No.2 of  the<br \/>\nschedule  of  property, permanent Injunction restraining 3rd Defendant and his<br \/>\nhenchmen from in any manner trespassing into the suit property, directing  the<br \/>\ndefendants  to  pay  the costs of the suit and for grant of such other reliefs<br \/>\ndeemed fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case.  Subsequently,  the<br \/>\nplaintiffs  had  prayed for an amendment of the prayer in I.A.No.1005 of 199 6<br \/>\nand that was ordered as prayed for by an order, dated 15.03.2001,  adding  the<br \/>\nfollowing prayer for :-\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8216;Directing the defendants to be ejected from item-1 of plaint schedule<br \/>\nproperty and vacant possession of the same given to the plaintiffs&#8217;<\/p>\n<p>        4.      It  is  the  case  of  the  petitioner that the suit which was<br \/>\noriginally filed in the  Principal  District  Munsif  Court,  Coimbatore,  was<br \/>\nsubsequently   transferred   to   the  First  Additional  Sub-ordinate  Judge,<br \/>\nCoimbatore,  and  later  to  the  Second  Additional  District  Munsif  Court,<br \/>\nCoimbatore.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.      It  is  averred by the petitioner herein that he was not aware<br \/>\nof the transfer of the case from one  Court  to  another  and  also  that  his<br \/>\ncounsel did  not  inform  him.    Therefore,  an  exparte decree was passed on<br \/>\n13.04.2005 and subsequently  EP.No.89  of  2005  was  filed  for  delivery  of<br \/>\npossession of the property mentioned in the suit schedule.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.      It  is  also  the  case of the petitioner in the present Civil<br \/>\nRevision Petition that after the transfer of the suit, no notice was served on<br \/>\nhim.  Further, it is the case of the petitioner that he was undergoing medical<br \/>\ntreatment and that he could not contact his counsel and therefore he  did  not<br \/>\nknow  about the ex-parte decree passed against him on 13.04.2005 in OS.No.2209<br \/>\nof 1993 on the file of Second Additional District  Munsif  Court,  Coimbatore.<br \/>\nIt  is his further case that he had filed I.A.No.632 of 2005 in O.S.No.2209 of<br \/>\n1993, under section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 185  days<br \/>\nin filing an application to set aside the exparte decree, dated 13.04.2005.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.      He  further  states that on an erroneous appreciation of facts<br \/>\nand law, the learned District Munsif by an order, dated 29.12.2005,  dismissed<br \/>\nthe interim application in I.A.No.632 of 2005.  Against the said order, he has<br \/>\npreferred the  present  Civil  Revision  Petition.    By a Civil Miscellaneous<br \/>\nPetition No.439  of  2006,  he  has  also  prayed  for  stay  of  all  further<br \/>\nproceedings  in  E.P.No.89  of  2005 on the file of Principal District Munsif,<br \/>\nCoimbatore, pending disposal of the present Civil Revision Petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.      It is the case of the respondent that he had  filed  the  suit<br \/>\nO.S.No.2209  of 1993 for injunction and other reliefs and also for recovery of<br \/>\npossession against the present petitioner and others.  He further states  that<br \/>\nthe  suit  was  filed  before  the  District  Munsif,  Coimbatore, wherein the<br \/>\npetitioner had entered appearance through his counsel and contested the  case.<br \/>\nSubsequently,  the  suit was transferred to Sub-court, Coimbatore, only in the<br \/>\nyear 2002 and was renumbered as O.  S.No.204 of  2002,  in  which  proceedings<br \/>\nalso,  the  petitioner  in  the  present  Civil Revision Petition had appeared<br \/>\nthrough his counsel, on 05.02.2003, before the sub-court and  the  above  suit<br \/>\nwas adjourned  several  times.    Inspite  of the suit being adjourned several<br \/>\ntimes the petitioner had not filed the written statement.  On 01.07.2003, when<br \/>\nthe suit was taken up for hearing, the petitioner did not appear  and  he  was<br \/>\ncalled, absent  and  set  exparte.    However,  the  petitioner  was all along<br \/>\nrepresented by his counsel.  It is further stated that the suit was once again<br \/>\ntransferred to the District Munsif Court, Coimbatore  and  on  13.04.2005  the<br \/>\nsuit was decreed exparte.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.      The  respondents\/plaintiffs  had  filed the execution petition<br \/>\nfor executing the decree.  Only thereafter, on 14.11.2005, the petitioner  had<br \/>\nfiled an application in I.A.No.632 of 2005, under Section 5 of Limitation Act,<br \/>\nto  condone  the  delay of 185 days in filing the application to set aside the<br \/>\nexparte decree along with an application to set aside the exparte decree.   It<br \/>\nis  the  case  of  the  respondent  that the petitioner herein had filed three<br \/>\napplications in E.A.No.434 to 436 of 2005 before the Execution  Court.    i.e.<br \/>\nPrincipal  District  Munsif Court, Coimbatore, to set aside the exparte order,<br \/>\nto recall warrant and for  stay  respectively.    All  the  applications  were<br \/>\ndismissed  by  the  learned Principal District Munsif and delivery of property<br \/>\nwas ordered on 13.12.2005, following which the  respondents\/plaintiffs  herein<br \/>\nhad taken  delivery  of  the  suit  property  on  06.01.2006.    Further,  the<br \/>\nrespondents had denied the allegations made by the petitioner that he was  not<br \/>\naware  of  the  transfer  of the above suit from the Sub-court to the District<br \/>\nMunsif Court and further denies mala fides of the  petitioner  in  filing  the<br \/>\npetition  to  condone  the  delay to set aside the exparte decree in which the<br \/>\nrespondents  contended  that  it  shows  the  recalcitrant  attitude  of   the<br \/>\npetitioner  and  that  he  has  not  come  to this court with clean hands and,<br \/>\ntherefore, the respondents have prayed that  this  court  may  be  pleased  to<br \/>\nvacate  the order granted on 06.01.2006 and therefore the petitioner herein is<br \/>\nnot entitled to any equitable relief in this revision.\n<\/p>\n<p>        10.     Relying on Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs.  Kuntal Kumari,  AIR  1969<br \/>\nSupreme Court  575,  State  of  West  Bengal  Vs.    The Administrator, Howrah<br \/>\nMunicipality,  AIR  1972  Supreme  Court  749,  the  Supreme   Court   in   N.<br \/>\nBALAKRISHNAN Vs.  M.KRISHNAMURTHY (1998) 7 SCC 123 has held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8221; 9.    It  is  axiomatic  that  condonation  of  delay is a matter of<br \/>\ndiscretion of the Court.  Section 5 of the Limitation Act does  not  say  that<br \/>\nsuch  discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit.<br \/>\nLength of delay is no matter, acceptability of the  explanation  is  the  only<br \/>\ncriterion.  Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a<br \/>\nwant of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay of a very<br \/>\nlong range  can  be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory.  Once<br \/>\nthe Court accepts the explanation as sufficient, it is the result of  positive<br \/>\nexercise of discretion and normally the superior Court should not disturb such<br \/>\nfinding,  much  less  in  revisional  jurisdiction,  unless  the  exercise  of<br \/>\ndiscretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse.   But  it<br \/>\nis a  different  matter when the first Court refuses to condone the delay.  In<br \/>\nsuch cases, the superior Court would be free to consider the cause  shown  for<br \/>\nthe  delay  afresh  and  it  is open to such superior Court to come to its own<br \/>\nfinding even untrammelled by the conclusion of the lower Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.  The reason for such a different stance is thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>        The primary function of a court is to adjudicate the  dispute  between<br \/>\nthe parties  and  to  advance  substantial  justice.  The time-limit fixed for<br \/>\napproaching the Court in different situations is not because on the expiry  of<br \/>\nsuch time a bad cause would transform into a good cause.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.  Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties.  They<br \/>\nare  meant  to  see  that  parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek<br \/>\ntheir remedy promptly.  The object of providing a legal remedy  is  to  repair<br \/>\nthe damage  caused  by  reason of legal injury.  The Law of limitation fixes a<br \/>\nlife span for such legal remedy  for  the  redress  of  the  legal  injury  so<br \/>\nsuffered.  Time  is  precious and wasted time would never revisit.  During the<br \/>\nefflux of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating  newer  persons  to<br \/>\nseek legal remedy by approaching the Courts.  So a life span must be fixed for<br \/>\neach remedy.    Unending  period for launching the remedy may lead to unending<br \/>\nuncertainty and consequential anarchy.  The Law of limitation is thus  founded<br \/>\non public  policy.    It is enshrined in the maxim Interest reipublicae up sit<br \/>\nfinis litium (it  is  for  the  general  welfare  that  a  period  be  put  to<br \/>\nlitigation).   Rules  of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the<br \/>\nparties.  They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics<br \/>\nbut seek their remedy promptly.  The idea is that every legal remedy  must  be<br \/>\nkept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.  A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing a<br \/>\nsuitor from  putting  forth  his cause.  There is no presumption that delay in<br \/>\napproaching the Court is always deliberate.  This  Court  has  held  that  the<br \/>\nwords  &#8220;sufficient cause&#8221; under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive<br \/>\na liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        11.  In this case, It is true that there has been a delay of 185  days<br \/>\nin  filing  the  application in IA No.632 of 2005 in filing the application to<br \/>\nset aside the exparte decree.  In the light of the aforesaid decisions as well<br \/>\nas the law laid down by the apex Court in its various  decisions  relating  to<br \/>\ncondonation  of delay, the words &#8221; Sufficient Cause&#8221; found in section 5 of the<br \/>\nLimitation Act, 1963, should receive a liberal construction so as  to  advance<br \/>\nsubstantial  justice  and while giving opportunity to the Revision Petitioner,<br \/>\nthe right accrued to the respondent is also to be kept in view and balance has<br \/>\nto be struck and has to be applied.  In the present case,  it  is  found  that<br \/>\nconsequent  to the order passed in the Execution Petition, the respondents had<br \/>\ntaken delivery of the suit property on 06.01.2006 itself.\n<\/p>\n<p>        12.     In view of  the  above  circumstances,  this  court  finds  it<br \/>\nappropriate  to  pass an order directing the learned Principal District Munsif<br \/>\nCourt, Coimbatore, to allow I.A.No.632 of 2005  filed  by  the  petitioner  to<br \/>\ncondone  the  delay  of  185  days  in filing the application to set aside the<br \/>\nexparte decree, dated 13.04.2005,  on  the  petitioner  making  a  payment  of<br \/>\nRs.5000\/-  to  the  respondents  as  costs  within  two weeks from the date of<br \/>\nreceipt of a  copy  of  this  order.    On  such  proof  being  shown  to  the<br \/>\nsatisfaction  of  the  Court,  the suit in O.S.No.2209 of 1993 may be taken on<br \/>\nfile and decided on merits, in accordance with law, within a  period  of  four<br \/>\nmonths thereafter.\n<\/p>\n<p>        With  the  above  directions,  the  present Civil Revision Petition is<br \/>\nallowed.  Consequently, connected CMP and VCMP are closed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>ssm <\/p>\n<p>To<br \/>\nThe Second Additional District Munsif Court,<br \/>\nCoimbatore.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Syed Nusarathullah vs Natarajan on 13 February, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13\/02\/2006 CORAM THE HON&#8217;BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN CRP.(NPD) No.58 of 2006 and C.M.P.No.439 of 2006 and V.C.M.P.No.22 of 2006 Syed Nusarathullah &#8230;. Petitioner Vs. -Vs- 1. Natarajan 2. A.Visalakshi Ammal 3. A.Nithyanandan 4. A.Dhandapani 5. A.Bhjojarajan [&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-198247","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>Syed Nusarathullah vs Natarajan on 13 February, 2006 - 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\/syed-nusarathullah-vs-natarajan-on-13-february-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Syed Nusarathullah vs Natarajan on 13 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syed-nusarathullah-vs-natarajan-on-13-february-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-02-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-01T00:47:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/syed-nusarathullah-vs-natarajan-on-13-february-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/syed-nusarathullah-vs-natarajan-on-13-february-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Syed Nusarathullah vs Natarajan on 13 February, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-01T00:47:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/syed-nusarathullah-vs-natarajan-on-13-february-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1781,\"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\\\/syed-nusarathullah-vs-natarajan-on-13-february-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/syed-nusarathullah-vs-natarajan-on-13-february-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/syed-nusarathullah-vs-natarajan-on-13-february-2006\",\"name\":\"Syed Nusarathullah vs Natarajan on 13 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-01T00:47:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/syed-nusarathullah-vs-natarajan-on-13-february-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/syed-nusarathullah-vs-natarajan-on-13-february-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/syed-nusarathullah-vs-natarajan-on-13-february-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Syed Nusarathullah vs Natarajan on 13 February, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Syed Nusarathullah vs Natarajan on 13 February, 2006 - 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\/syed-nusarathullah-vs-natarajan-on-13-february-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Syed Nusarathullah vs Natarajan on 13 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syed-nusarathullah-vs-natarajan-on-13-february-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-02-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-01T00:47:01+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syed-nusarathullah-vs-natarajan-on-13-february-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syed-nusarathullah-vs-natarajan-on-13-february-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Syed Nusarathullah vs Natarajan on 13 February, 2006","datePublished":"2006-02-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-01T00:47:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syed-nusarathullah-vs-natarajan-on-13-february-2006"},"wordCount":1781,"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\/syed-nusarathullah-vs-natarajan-on-13-february-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syed-nusarathullah-vs-natarajan-on-13-february-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syed-nusarathullah-vs-natarajan-on-13-february-2006","name":"Syed Nusarathullah vs Natarajan on 13 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-02-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-01T00:47:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syed-nusarathullah-vs-natarajan-on-13-february-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syed-nusarathullah-vs-natarajan-on-13-february-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syed-nusarathullah-vs-natarajan-on-13-february-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Syed Nusarathullah vs Natarajan on 13 February, 2006"}]},{"@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\/198247","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=198247"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/198247\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=198247"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=198247"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=198247"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}