{"id":199324,"date":"2009-03-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-chadha-vs-satish-chaudhary-and-another-on-25-march-2009"},"modified":"2018-04-04T00:21:53","modified_gmt":"2018-04-03T18:51:53","slug":"rajesh-chadha-vs-satish-chaudhary-and-another-on-25-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-chadha-vs-satish-chaudhary-and-another-on-25-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"Rajesh Chadha vs Satish Chaudhary And Another on 25 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Rajesh Chadha vs Satish Chaudhary And Another on 25 March, 2009<\/div>\n
Civil Revision No.6886 of 2006 (O & M)                   -1-\n\n     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA\n                   AT CHANDIGARH\n\n                     Civil Revision No.6886 of 2006 (O & M)\n                     Date of decision:25.03.2009\n\nRajesh Chadha                                      .....Petitioner\n\n                           versus\n\n\nSatish Chaudhary and another                       .....Respondents<\/pre>\n
Coram:-   HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL.\n<\/p>\n
Present: Mr. M. L. Sarin, Sr. Advocate with
\n         Mr. Hemant Sarin, Advocate for the petitioner.<\/p>\n
          Mr. Amit Singh, Advocate for respondents.\n<\/p>\n
L. N. MITTAL, J<\/p>\n
          Plaintiff Rajesh Chadha has filed this civil revision<\/p>\n
petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting<\/p>\n
aside the impugned order dated 30.10.2006, Annexure P-12<\/p>\n
passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),<\/p>\n
Garhshanker, as affirmed in appeal by learned Additional District<\/p>\n
Judge, Hoshiarpur vide judgment dated 13.12.2006, Annexure<\/p>\n
P-13, whereby application moved by the plaintiff under Order 39<\/p>\n
Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil<\/p>\n
Procedure (C.P.C) for temporary injunction stands dismissed.<\/p>\n
          Admitted case of the parties is that defendant No.1<\/p>\n
Satish Chaudhary, who is also proprietor of defendant No.2 M\/s<\/p>\n
Maa Bhagwati & Co., entered into agreement dated 9.02.2006<\/p>\n
Annexure P-1 with the plaintiff for sale of the suit property known<\/p>\n
as M\/s Kartar Glass Company, Garhshanker (in village Kullewal)
\n Civil Revision No.6886 of 2006 (O & M)                -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
comprised of 22 \u00bd acres of land along with scrap for Rs.5 crores<\/p>\n
and received Rs.1 crore as earnest money.          Sale deed was<\/p>\n
stipulated to be got registered on 9.1.2007.<\/p>\n
           The plaintiff’s case is that the plaintiff has always<\/p>\n
been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but the<\/p>\n
defendants started backing out of the same.           Since date<\/p>\n
stipulated in the agreement for execution of sale deed had not<\/p>\n
expired, the plaintiff filed suit vide plaint dated 29.09.2006,<\/p>\n
Annexure    P-7,   for   permanent   injunction   restraining   the<\/p>\n
defendants from alienating any part of the suit property and from<\/p>\n
removing any iron, machinery, scrap, trees etc. therefrom.<\/p>\n
Temporary injunction to the same effect till final disposal of the<\/p>\n
suit was claimed by the plaintiff by moving application under<\/p>\n
Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC.<\/p>\n
           The defendants in the reply to the application<\/p>\n
admitted the execution of agreement, Annexure P-1,              and<\/p>\n
receipt of Rs.1 crore as earnest money.           The defendants,<\/p>\n
however, pleaded that the said agreement was cancelled and<\/p>\n
earnest money in full was refunded to the plaintiff. A sum of<\/p>\n
Rs.74 lacs was allegedly received by the plaintiff vide undated<\/p>\n
receipt Annexure P-10 and another sum of Rs.36 lacs was<\/p>\n
received by him shortly thereafter vide receipt dated 7.07.2006,<\/p>\n
Annexure P-11 and thus the agreement stood cancelled.<\/p>\n
           Both the Courts below did not accept the plaintiff’s<\/p>\n
version.   Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed the instant
\n Civil Revision No.6886 of 2006 (O & M)                   -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
revision petition.\n<\/p>\n
           I have heard learned counsel for the parties and<\/p>\n
perused the case file.\n<\/p>\n
           Before proceeding further, it has to be noticed that<\/p>\n
during pendency of the suit, the plaint has been amended and<\/p>\n
the plaintiff has also claimed relief of specific performance of the<\/p>\n
agreement Annexure P-1.          It is also to be noticed that<\/p>\n
documents Annexure P-10 and Annexure P-11 relied on by the<\/p>\n
defendants referr to two agreements i.e agreement Annexure P-<\/p>\n
1 for sale M\/s Kartar Glass Company and also another<\/p>\n
agreement between the parties for sale of assets of M\/s Mangla<\/p>\n
Cotex Ltd. situated about 20 Kms from Ludhiana on Chandigarh-<\/p>\n
Ludhiana road. Vide said other agreement dated 1.05.2006, the<\/p>\n
plaintiff paid Rs.60 lacs as earnest money to the defendants for<\/p>\n
purchasing the assets of M\/s Mangla Cotex Ltd. for Rs.8 crores.<\/p>\n
Vide documents Annexure P10 and Annexure P-11, both the<\/p>\n
agreements are said to have been cancelled.\n<\/p>\n
           Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset,<\/p>\n
relying on judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Surya<\/p>\n
Dev Rai versus Ram Chander Rai and others AIR 2003<\/p>\n
Supreme Court 3044, contended that power of superintendence<\/p>\n
of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is<\/p>\n
much wider than the revisional power of this Court under Section<\/p>\n
115 CPC. There is no quarrel with this proposition.<\/p>\n
           Learned    counsel   for   the   petitioner   vehemently
\n Civil Revision No.6886 of 2006 (O & M)                 -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
contended that agreement between the parties stands admitted,<\/p>\n
but the alleged cancellation thereof, vide documents Annexure<\/p>\n
P10 and Annexure P-11, cannot be accepted.                There is<\/p>\n
considerable force in the contention. Document Annexure P-10<\/p>\n
purports to be receipt which is undated, but scribed on stamp<\/p>\n
papers worth Rs.50\/- plus Rs.50\/- purchased on 27.03.2006.<\/p>\n
           Learned counsel for the respondents contended that<\/p>\n
this receipt was executed shortly before receipt dated 7.07.2006<\/p>\n
Annexure P-11 as pleaded in the reply to application for<\/p>\n
temporary injunction. It was also pointed out by learned counsel<\/p>\n
for respondents that six bank drafts dated 1.05.2006 for total<\/p>\n
amount of Rs.50 lacs were paid by the respondents to the<\/p>\n
plaintiff but the said drafts were got prepared in favour of one<\/p>\n
Madan Bassi (for Rs.25 lacs) and in favour of Harminder Pal (for<\/p>\n
Rs.25 lacs) on the instructions of the plaintiff and the same<\/p>\n
stand encashed at Ludhiana on 3.05.2006.              Vide receipt<\/p>\n
Annexure P-10, a sum of Rs.74 lakhs was recited to have been<\/p>\n
received by the plaintiff and vide receipt Annexure P-11, a sum<\/p>\n
of Rs.36 lakhs was recited to have been received by the plaintiff.<\/p>\n
In addition to bank drafts of Rs.50 lacs, the plaintiff has admitted<\/p>\n
to have received bank drafts of Rs.24 lakhs (three drafts of Rs.8<\/p>\n
lacs each), but allegedly relating to cancellation of the<\/p>\n
agreement of M\/s Mangla Cotex Ltd. and not for cancellation of<\/p>\n
agreement Annexure P-1 of Kartar Glass Company.<\/p>\n
           As noticed above, receipt Annexure P-10 is undated
\n Civil Revision No.6886 of 2006 (O & M)              -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
but scribed on stamp papers purchased on 27.03.2006. The<\/p>\n
defendants have refrained from specifying even approximate<\/p>\n
date of the said receipt.      Even learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
respondents on pointed inquiry is unable to state the<\/p>\n
approximate date of the said receipt. However, bank drafts for<\/p>\n
Rs.50 lacs were allegedly got prepared by the defendants on<\/p>\n
1.05.2006. Consequently, alleged cancellation of the agreement<\/p>\n
Annexure P-1 must have been agreed upon on or before<\/p>\n
1.05.2006. As per documents Annexure P-10 and Annexure P-<\/p>\n
11, both the agreements were cancelled. However, the second<\/p>\n
agreement was dated 1.05.2006. It is prima facie highly<\/p>\n
improbable that the parties entered into the second agreement<\/p>\n
on 1.05.2006 and the plaintiff paid Rs.60 lacs to the defendants<\/p>\n
as earnest money on that date, and on the same day, the parties<\/p>\n
agreed to cancel both the agreements. Learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
respondents contended that only one agreement i.e Annexure<\/p>\n
P-1 was cancelled on that date. However, documents Annexure<\/p>\n
P-10 and Annexure P-11 refer to cancellation of both the<\/p>\n
agreements.    Even if for the sake of argument alone, it is<\/p>\n
assumed that only one agreement i.e annexure P-1 was agreed<\/p>\n
to be cancelled on 1.5.2006, the same also appears to be<\/p>\n
improbable because on the same day, the plaintiff had paid<\/p>\n
Rs.60 lacs as earnest money to the defendants under the<\/p>\n
second agreement. Moveover, the defendants would not have<\/p>\n
paid the bank drafts dated 1.05.2006 for Rs.50 lacs to the
\n Civil Revision No.6886 of 2006 (O & M)                -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
plaintiff on 1.05.2006 without any receipt, particularly because<\/p>\n
the said bank drafts were not even in favour of plaintiff but were<\/p>\n
in favour of some two other persons.\n<\/p>\n
           There is another significant aspect of the matter.<\/p>\n
Agreement Annexure P1 stands admitted by both the parties.<\/p>\n
Vide this agreement, earnest money of Rs.1 crore was paid in<\/p>\n
cash. However, receipt Annexure P-11 refers to the earnest<\/p>\n
money of Rs.1 crore paid by way of two bank drafts of Rs.50<\/p>\n
lacs each to the Official Liquidator and not to the defendants<\/p>\n
directly. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able<\/p>\n
to explain this significant contradiction.<\/p>\n
           Learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out<\/p>\n
that the petitioner had paid Rs.1 crore vide agreement Annexure<\/p>\n
P-1 and Rs.60 lacs vide second agreement dated 1.05.2006, but<\/p>\n
according to documents Annexure P-10 and Annexure P-11, a<\/p>\n
sum of Rs.1.10 crore only was refunded to the petitioner and<\/p>\n
there is no recital in these documents nor any pleading by the<\/p>\n
defendants that the petitioner had foregone the remaining<\/p>\n
amount of Rs.50 lacs.        There is considerable force in the<\/p>\n
contention. The aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the petitioner has not been rebutted in any manner.         On the<\/p>\n
contrary, perusal of documents Annexures P-10 and P-11<\/p>\n
reveals that the petitioner had been paid Rs.1.10 crore as<\/p>\n
against the earnest money of Rs.1 crore. These documents do<\/p>\n
not at all refer to the earnest money of Rs.60 lacs paid under the
\n Civil Revision No.6886 of 2006 (O & M)                 -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
second agreement dated 1.05.2006.\n<\/p>\n
           Learned counsel for the respondents emphasised that<\/p>\n
document Annexure P-10 is in the own handwriting of the<\/p>\n
petitioner and document Annexure P-11 has been signed by the<\/p>\n
petitioner. However, this fact can be ascertained only after the<\/p>\n
parties lead evidence in the Trial Court.       At this stage, the<\/p>\n
petitioner has not admitted these documents.<\/p>\n
           Learned counsel for the respondents emphasised that<\/p>\n
concurrent finding of facts by both the Courts below even if<\/p>\n
erroneous should not be interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction<\/p>\n
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The contention<\/p>\n
cannot be accepted as there is no concurrent finding of fact by<\/p>\n
both the Courts below. On the other hand, final finding of fact<\/p>\n
has to be arrived at after recording evidence in the suit. At this<\/p>\n
stage, prima facie case has to be looked into on the basis of the<\/p>\n
material of the record.        The Courts below have failed to<\/p>\n
appreciate documents Annexures P-10 and P-11 in proper<\/p>\n
perspective. Moreover, when the petitioner has filed suit for<\/p>\n
specific performance, it would be desirable to preserve the suit<\/p>\n
property   because    otherwise    the   petitioner   would   suffer<\/p>\n
irreparable loss and injury.\n<\/p>\n
           Learned counsel for the respondents also contended<\/p>\n
that plea of forgery of documents Annexures P-10 and P-11 has<\/p>\n
been raised for the first time in the revision petition.       This<\/p>\n
contention also cannot be accepted because it was also so
\n Civil Revision No.6886 of 2006 (O & M)                   -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
taken up in the appeal and also in the replication.<\/p>\n
            For the foregoing reasons, I find that the petitioner<\/p>\n
has made out a strong prima facie case.                  Balance of<\/p>\n
convenience is also in favour of the petitioner because he has<\/p>\n
paid huge amount of Rs.1 crore which stands admitted by the<\/p>\n
defendants.    The petitioner would obviously suffer irreparable<\/p>\n
loss and injury, if the defendants are allowed to remove the iron,<\/p>\n
machinery and trees from the suit property or to alienate the<\/p>\n
same. The impugned orders of both the Courts below are not<\/p>\n
sustainable at all.\n<\/p>\n
            In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is<\/p>\n
allowed and impugned orders of both the Courts below are set<\/p>\n
aside and application filed by the petitioner for temporary<\/p>\n
injunction is allowed and defendants are ‘restrained’ from<\/p>\n
removing iron, machinery\/scrap and trees from the suit property<\/p>\n
till final decision of the suit. However, nothing observed herein<\/p>\n
above shall influence the Trial Court at the time of final decision<\/p>\n
of the suit. The trial Court shall make endeavor to decide the<\/p>\n
suit expeditiously and preferably within one year from the date of<\/p>\n
receipt of a copy of this order.\n<\/p>\n
            Both the parties shall be given only two effective<\/p>\n
opportunities each for leading their evidence.<\/p>\n
                                                   ( L. N. MITTAL )
\n                                                         JUDGE<\/p>\n
25.03.2009
\nA.Kaundal\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Rajesh Chadha vs Satish Chaudhary And Another on 25 March, 2009 Civil Revision No.6886 of 2006 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6886 of 2006 (O & M) Date of decision:25.03.2009 Rajesh Chadha …..Petitioner versus Satish Chaudhary and another …..Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-199324","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRajesh Chadha vs Satish Chaudhary And Another on 25 March, 2009 - 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\/rajesh-chadha-vs-satish-chaudhary-and-another-on-25-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajesh Chadha vs Satish Chaudhary And Another on 25 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-chadha-vs-satish-chaudhary-and-another-on-25-march-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-03-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-03T18:51:53+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\\\/rajesh-chadha-vs-satish-chaudhary-and-another-on-25-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-chadha-vs-satish-chaudhary-and-another-on-25-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rajesh Chadha vs Satish Chaudhary And Another on 25 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-03T18:51:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-chadha-vs-satish-chaudhary-and-another-on-25-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1873,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-chadha-vs-satish-chaudhary-and-another-on-25-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-chadha-vs-satish-chaudhary-and-another-on-25-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-chadha-vs-satish-chaudhary-and-another-on-25-march-2009\",\"name\":\"Rajesh Chadha vs Satish Chaudhary And Another on 25 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-03T18:51:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-chadha-vs-satish-chaudhary-and-another-on-25-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-chadha-vs-satish-chaudhary-and-another-on-25-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-chadha-vs-satish-chaudhary-and-another-on-25-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajesh Chadha vs Satish Chaudhary And Another on 25 March, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Rajesh Chadha vs Satish Chaudhary And Another on 25 March, 2009 - 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\/rajesh-chadha-vs-satish-chaudhary-and-another-on-25-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajesh Chadha vs Satish Chaudhary And Another on 25 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-chadha-vs-satish-chaudhary-and-another-on-25-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-03T18:51:53+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\/rajesh-chadha-vs-satish-chaudhary-and-another-on-25-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-chadha-vs-satish-chaudhary-and-another-on-25-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rajesh Chadha vs Satish Chaudhary And Another on 25 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-03T18:51:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-chadha-vs-satish-chaudhary-and-another-on-25-march-2009"},"wordCount":1873,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-chadha-vs-satish-chaudhary-and-another-on-25-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-chadha-vs-satish-chaudhary-and-another-on-25-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-chadha-vs-satish-chaudhary-and-another-on-25-march-2009","name":"Rajesh Chadha vs Satish Chaudhary And Another on 25 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-03T18:51:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-chadha-vs-satish-chaudhary-and-another-on-25-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-chadha-vs-satish-chaudhary-and-another-on-25-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-chadha-vs-satish-chaudhary-and-another-on-25-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajesh Chadha vs Satish Chaudhary And Another on 25 March, 2009"}]},{"@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\/199324","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=199324"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/199324\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=199324"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=199324"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=199324"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}