{"id":203275,"date":"2008-11-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangal-ram-vs-roshan-lal-on-25-november-2008"},"modified":"2017-05-24T04:12:40","modified_gmt":"2017-05-23T22:42:40","slug":"mangal-ram-vs-roshan-lal-on-25-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangal-ram-vs-roshan-lal-on-25-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"Mangal Ram vs Roshan Lal on 25 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Mangal Ram vs Roshan Lal on 25 November, 2008<\/div>\n
RSA No. 3484 of 2006                    1\n\nIn the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh\n                                ...\n\n\n                                        RSA No. 3484 of 2006\n\n                                        Date of decision: November 25,2008\n\nMangal Ram                                               ..Appellant.\n\n                                  Versus\n\nRoshan Lal                                             ..Respondent\n\n\nCoram:        Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg\n\nPresent:     Mr. Vikram Bajaj, Advocate\n             for the appellant.\n             Mr. O.P.Gaba, Advocate\n             for the respondents.\n                       ...\n\nRakesh Kumar Garg,J.\n<\/pre>\n
             This is defendant’s second challenging the judgment and decrees<\/p>\n
of the courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for recovery of<\/p>\n
Rs.54000\/- (i.e., Rs.36000\/- as principal amount and Rs. 18000\/- as interest) has<\/p>\n
been decreed with future interest at the rate of 6 % per annum on the principal<\/p>\n
amount of Rs.36000\/- from the date of filing of the suit till the realization of the<\/p>\n
decretal amount. The plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit for recovery of<\/p>\n
Rs.54000\/- against the appellant\/defendant(i.e., Rs.36000\/- as principal amount<\/p>\n
and Rs. 18000\/- as interest @ 2 % per month) on the averment that defendant<\/p>\n
borrowed an amount of Rs.36000\/- from the plaintiff on 16.6.1998 and executed<\/p>\n
pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff in consideration thereof agreeing to<\/p>\n
pay the said amount on       demand @ 2 % p.m.         The plaintiff requested the<\/p>\n
defendant to make payment of loan amount along with interest and also<\/p>\n
presented him pronote and receipt for return of the said loan amount along with<\/p>\n
interest but the defendant refused to pay the said amount along with interest<\/p>\n
which has necessitated in filing the present suit.\n<\/p>\n
             The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement inter<\/p>\n
alia submitting therein that he has neither executed the pronote and receipt nor<\/p>\n
he has received Rs. 36000\/- from the plaintiff on 16.6.1998. The pronote and
\n RSA No. 3484 of 2006                    2<\/span><\/p>\n
receipt were alleged to be forged and fabricated documents. All other allegations<\/p>\n
were denied and admittedly of the suit was prayed for.\n<\/p>\n
             From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed<\/p>\n
on 2.11.2001 by the trial Court:-\n<\/p>\n
              1. Whether the defendant borrowed a loan of Rs. 36000\/- from the<\/p>\n
              plaintiff on 16.6.1998 and executed pronote and receipt for this<\/p>\n
              loan ? OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
              2. Whether the defendant agreed to pay an interest at the rate of 2<\/p>\n
              % per month ?OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             3.Whether the pronote and receipt are forged and fabricated ?OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             4. Relief.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             After appreciating the evidence on record and hearing the counsel<\/p>\n
for the parties, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent holding<\/p>\n
that the plaintiff-respondent proved the execution of the pronote Ex.P1 and<\/p>\n
receipt Ex. P2 before the trial Court. However, the defendant-appellant was not<\/p>\n
able to lead any evidence direct or circumstantial to prove that he neither<\/p>\n
executed the said document nor received the loan amount. No evidence was<\/p>\n
produced by the defendant-appellant to prove issue No.3 that the pronote and<\/p>\n
receipt are forged and fabricated documents.\n<\/p>\n
             Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and decree of<\/p>\n
the trial Court, the defendant filed the appeal, which was also dismissed by the<\/p>\n
lower Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 21.4.2006.<\/p>\n
             While dismissing the appeal, the District Judge held that the plea of<\/p>\n
the appellant defendant that the document was forged and fabricated is not<\/p>\n
proved on record.\n<\/p>\n
             Still not satisfied, the defendant has filed the instant appeal<\/p>\n
challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below.<\/p>\n
             Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently that the<\/p>\n
judgment and decrees of the courts below are liable to be set aside as the<\/p>\n
appellant had denied his signatures on the promissory note and receipt and he
\n RSA No. 3484 of 2006                   3<\/span><\/p>\n
had requested the trial Court by filing the application that his signatures may<\/p>\n
kindly be got compared from the Director, Central Forensic Science Laboratory,<\/p>\n
Chandigarh. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court illegally and<\/p>\n
he had challenged the said order of the trial Court by filing Civil Revision No.631<\/p>\n
of 2005 in this Court and the revision petition was still pending in this Court<\/p>\n
when the trial Court decreed the suit without waiting for the decision of this Court<\/p>\n
on his revision petition.\n<\/p>\n
               It has been further argued by the counsel for the appellant that<\/p>\n
even the lower Appellate Court has not considered this fact and dismissed his<\/p>\n
appeal. In spite of the fact that the appellant had specifically raised this issue<\/p>\n
before the lower Appellate Court.\n<\/p>\n
              On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent has<\/p>\n
supported the judgment and decrees of the courts below and has argued that<\/p>\n
the courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a finding of fact that<\/p>\n
plaintiff-respondent has proved execution of the pronote and receipt in question<\/p>\n
whereas the appellant has failed to prove that the pronote and receipt are forged<\/p>\n
and fabricated.\n<\/p>\n
              Learned counsel for the respondent has also stated that the<\/p>\n
appellant has not produced any order of this court passed in Civil Revision<\/p>\n
No.631 of 2005 stating the proceedings before the courts below.<\/p>\n
              I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the<\/p>\n
record. I find no force in the contentions raised by the counsel for the appellant.<\/p>\n
In this case, the contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is that he had<\/p>\n
applied to the trial Court for getting his signatures compared from a Government<\/p>\n
Hand Writing Expert and this plea was turned down without any justification and<\/p>\n
it was his right to get his signatures compared to prove his assertion that the<\/p>\n
pronote and receipt in question are forged and fabricated documents and<\/p>\n
therefore, the trial Court was not justified in declining his prayer. However, there<\/p>\n
is nothing on record of the courts below to support the plea of the appellant. The<\/p>\n
appellant has not placed on record any facts to show that the application for
\n RSA No. 3484 of 2006                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
proving his signatures from the Government Hand Writing Expert                 was<\/p>\n
dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant was specifically asked by this<\/p>\n
Court to produce     the record of the revision petition, even then it was not<\/p>\n
produced. Even the learned counsel for the appellant was neither able to give<\/p>\n
the date of the order of the trial Court rejecting his application for comparing his<\/p>\n
signatures from the Government Hand Writing Expert nor the learned counsel<\/p>\n
was able to given the date of filing of the revision petition in this Court. He even<\/p>\n
was not able to produce order of revision petition. He only stated that the said<\/p>\n
revision petition was dismissed as infructuous on 4.4.2006 by this Court. He was<\/p>\n
unable to show under what circumstances it was dismissed as infructuous.<\/p>\n
             The record of Civil Revision No.631 of 2005 titled as Mangal Ram<\/p>\n
Versus Roshan Lal was called from the record room of the High Court and it was<\/p>\n
found that the said Civil Revision was filed by the appellant Mangal Ram against<\/p>\n
the order dated 14.12.2004 passed by Civil Judge(Junior Division), Ferozepur on<\/p>\n
his application for sending the original pronote to the Director,Central Forensic<\/p>\n
Science Laboratory, Chandigarh for comparison the said order is reproduced as<\/p>\n
under:-\n<\/p>\n
             ” Present: Counsel for the parties.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                         Heard. An application has been made by the defendant<\/p>\n
             for sending the original pronote and receipt in dispute along with<\/p>\n
             specific signatures of Mangal Ram defendant to the Director,<\/p>\n
             Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh for comparison.<\/p>\n
             This application has been contested and denied that signatures of<\/p>\n
             defendant on the receipt and pronote are forged and fabricated as<\/p>\n
             alleged. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone<\/p>\n
             through the record. Perusal of the file reveals that case was fixed<\/p>\n
             for evidence of the defendant and the defendant is at liberty to get<\/p>\n
             the signatures of Mangal Ram compared from any Hand Writing<\/p>\n
             Finger Print Expert. As such, I do not find any merit in this<\/p>\n
             application and the same is dismissed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 RSA No. 3484 of 2006                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
                      To come up on 17.3.2005 for evidence of the defendant at<\/p>\n
             own responsibility.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             Announced.                               Sd\/-\n             14.12.2004                               CJ(JD),Ferozepur\"\n\n<\/pre>\n
             This Civil Revision was filed on 28.1.2005 and notice of motion was<\/p>\n
issued for 21.2.2005 for final disposal vide order dated 31.1.2005. Only dasti<\/p>\n
process was ordered. Thereafter, the case came up on 4.4.2006 and on that<\/p>\n
date, the counsel for the petitioner(now appellant) withdrew the revision petition.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Order dated 4.4.2006 is reproduced as under:-\n<\/p>\n
             “Present: Shri N.S. Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                        ..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n                       Learned counsel for the petitioner wishes to withdraw the<\/p>\n
             present revision petition. Allowed as prayed for.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                        Dismissed as withdrawn.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             04.04.2006                               Sd\/-\n                                                      Hemant Gupta\n                                                           JUDGE\"\n\n<\/pre>\n
             From perusal of the above said orders, it is crystal clear that firstly<\/p>\n
the appellant himself has not pressed the revision petition before this Court and<\/p>\n
secondly, vide order dated 14.12.2004, the Civil Judge (Junior Division),<\/p>\n
Ferozepur has categorically stated that the case is fixed for evidence of the<\/p>\n
defendant and the defendant is at liberty to get his signatures compared from<\/p>\n
any Hand Writing Finger Print Expert, thus it was for the appellant himself to<\/p>\n
prove his case.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             It may also be pointed out here that admittedly Civil Revision<\/p>\n
No.631 of 2005 was decided on 4.4.2006 whereas the first appeal was decided<\/p>\n
by the District Judge on 21.4.2006 and the order was known to the appellant.<\/p>\n
The appellant has also not placed on record any facts with regard to the fact that<\/p>\n
when his evidence was closed by the trial Court and when he has moved this<\/p>\n
application. In any case, the burden of proof to prove that the alleged pronote<\/p>\n
and receipt are fabricated and forged documents was upon the appellant and it<\/p>\n
was for him to lead evidence to prove this assertion. He has failed to lead any
\n RSA No. 3484 of 2006                   6<\/span><\/p>\n
evidence in this regard. Thus       the plea raised by the appellant that his<\/p>\n
application was dismissed without any justification and the lower Appellate Court<\/p>\n
has not discussed this point in the judgment is without any force.<\/p>\n
             The judgment cited by the learned counsel in the case of Smt.<\/p>\n
Gurcharan    Kaur Versus Malkiat Singh etc.        1987(1) All India Land Laws<\/p>\n
Reporter -342 is not applicable on the facts of the case. The plaintiff having<\/p>\n
discharged his initial burden by proving the documents. It was for the defendant<\/p>\n
to prove his plea that the document was forged and fabricated and              the<\/p>\n
defendant having failed to discharge his burden. The courts below ere right in<\/p>\n
passing the impugned decree.\n<\/p>\n
             For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in this appeal.<\/p>\n
             No substantial question of law arises.\n<\/p>\n
             Dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
November 25, 2008                                (RAKESH KUMAR GARG)\n            nk                                           JUDGE\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Mangal Ram vs Roshan Lal on 25 November, 2008 RSA No. 3484 of 2006 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … RSA No. 3484 of 2006 Date of decision: November 25,2008 Mangal Ram ..Appellant. Versus Roshan Lal ..Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg […]<\/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-203275","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMangal Ram vs Roshan Lal on 25 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangal-ram-vs-roshan-lal-on-25-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mangal Ram vs Roshan Lal on 25 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangal-ram-vs-roshan-lal-on-25-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-23T22:42:40+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\\\/mangal-ram-vs-roshan-lal-on-25-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangal-ram-vs-roshan-lal-on-25-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mangal Ram vs Roshan Lal on 25 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-23T22:42:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangal-ram-vs-roshan-lal-on-25-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1655,\"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\\\/mangal-ram-vs-roshan-lal-on-25-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangal-ram-vs-roshan-lal-on-25-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangal-ram-vs-roshan-lal-on-25-november-2008\",\"name\":\"Mangal Ram vs Roshan Lal on 25 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-23T22:42:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangal-ram-vs-roshan-lal-on-25-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangal-ram-vs-roshan-lal-on-25-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangal-ram-vs-roshan-lal-on-25-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mangal Ram vs Roshan Lal on 25 November, 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":"Mangal Ram vs Roshan Lal on 25 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangal-ram-vs-roshan-lal-on-25-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mangal Ram vs Roshan Lal on 25 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangal-ram-vs-roshan-lal-on-25-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-23T22:42:40+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\/mangal-ram-vs-roshan-lal-on-25-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangal-ram-vs-roshan-lal-on-25-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mangal Ram vs Roshan Lal on 25 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-23T22:42:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangal-ram-vs-roshan-lal-on-25-november-2008"},"wordCount":1655,"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\/mangal-ram-vs-roshan-lal-on-25-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangal-ram-vs-roshan-lal-on-25-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangal-ram-vs-roshan-lal-on-25-november-2008","name":"Mangal Ram vs Roshan Lal on 25 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-23T22:42:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangal-ram-vs-roshan-lal-on-25-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangal-ram-vs-roshan-lal-on-25-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangal-ram-vs-roshan-lal-on-25-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mangal Ram vs Roshan Lal on 25 November, 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\/203275","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=203275"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/203275\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=203275"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=203275"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=203275"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}