{"id":211247,"date":"2010-08-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-prakash-vs-ashwani-kumar-bassi-on-27-august-2010"},"modified":"2016-12-19T12:34:33","modified_gmt":"2016-12-19T07:04:33","slug":"om-prakash-vs-ashwani-kumar-bassi-on-27-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-prakash-vs-ashwani-kumar-bassi-on-27-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"Om Prakash vs Ashwani Kumar Bassi on 27 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Om Prakash vs Ashwani Kumar Bassi on 27 August, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: Altamas Kabir, A.K. Patnaik<\/div>\n
                                                                      REPORTABLE\n\n\n\n              IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n     SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.24430 OF 2008\n\n\nOm Prakash                                     ... Petitioner\n\n           Vs.\n\nAshwani Kumar Bassi                            ... Respondent\n\n\n\n                      J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
ALTAMAS KABIR, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
1.     This Special Leave Petition is directed against<\/p>\n
the    judgment     and   order    dated     5th   October,     2007,<\/p>\n
passed by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab &<\/p>\n
Haryana     High     Court,   dismissing           Civil    Revision<\/p>\n
Petition No.5129 of 2007 which had been                     filed by<\/p>\n
the Petitioner herein against an order dated 4th<\/p>\n
August,     2007,    passed       by   the    Rent     Controller,
\n                                                                      2<\/span><\/p>\n
Ludhiana. By his said order the Rent Controller<\/p>\n
dismissed        the     Petitioner’s          application       under<\/p>\n
Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the<\/p>\n
delay    in    filing    the     application       for       leave   to<\/p>\n
contest the eviction petition.                 Consequently, the<\/p>\n
application      for    leave    to   contest          the    eviction<\/p>\n
petition was also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.      The Respondent herein filed an application for<\/p>\n
eviction of the Petitioner from the premises in<\/p>\n
question      under    Section    13-B    of    the     East    Punjab<\/p>\n
Urban    Rent    Restriction       Act,        1949,     hereinafter<\/p>\n
referred to as “the 1949 Act”.                     Notice of the<\/p>\n
application was issued to the petitioner\/tenant in<\/p>\n
the prescribed form asking him to appear before the<\/p>\n
Rent Controller within 15 days from the date of<\/p>\n
service of the notice and to apply for leave to<\/p>\n
contest the petition.            The tenant was served with<\/p>\n
the summons of the eviction petition on 19th May,<\/p>\n
2005.    The 15 days’ period indicated in the notice
\n                                                                          3<\/span><\/p>\n
for filing the application for leave to contest<\/p>\n
expired on 3rd June, 2005. Such an application was<\/p>\n
subsequently made the next day on 4th June, 2005,<\/p>\n
but    was   not    accompanied          by    any     application     for<\/p>\n
condonation of the delay of one day in making the<\/p>\n
same.          Thereafter,         the        petitioner       filed     an<\/p>\n
application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act<\/p>\n
for condonation of the said delay in filing the<\/p>\n
application        which     was     dismissed          by     the     Rent<\/p>\n
Controller on            4th August, 2007, along with the<\/p>\n
application        for     leave     to       defend     the      eviction<\/p>\n
petition.          In      dismissing            the       Petitioner’s<\/p>\n
application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,<\/p>\n
1963,    the     Rent     Controller,           relying      on   certain<\/p>\n
judgments of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, held<\/p>\n
that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation<\/p>\n
Act were not applicable in proceedings before the<\/p>\n
Rent    Controller,       particularly,          for     condoning     the<\/p>\n
delay in filing an application for leave to contest
\n                                                                         4<\/span><\/p>\n
the eviction petition.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.     The    said     decision       of   the     Rent       Controller,<\/p>\n
Ludhiana,       was     questioned         in     Revision       Petition<\/p>\n
No.5129 of 2007 before the High Court and it was<\/p>\n
contended that the impugned order had been passed<\/p>\n
in violation of the provisions of Section 18-A(7)<\/p>\n
of    the    East     Punjab    Urban      Rent    Restriction        Act,<\/p>\n
1949, as also Section 17 of the Presidency Small<\/p>\n
Causes       Courts    Act,    1882.        It    was     contended     on<\/p>\n
behalf of the Petitioner that by virtue of Sub-<\/p>\n
section (7) of Section 18-A of the 1949 Act, the<\/p>\n
procedure prescribed for trial of a suit under the<\/p>\n
Small Causes Courts Act was also applicable for<\/p>\n
trial of eviction petitions under the 1949 Act and<\/p>\n
by virtue of Section 17 of the Small Causes Courts<\/p>\n
Act,    the    Code    of     Civil    Procedure        has    been   made<\/p>\n
applicable to eviction proceedings as well.                             It<\/p>\n
was     also     contended        that      it     was,        therefore,<\/p>\n
obligatory upon the part of the                   Rent Controller to
\n                                                                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
have considered the merits of the eviction petition<\/p>\n
and   to    direct    the   landlord     to     lead   evidence   to<\/p>\n
prove the grounds for eviction taken by him.                      It<\/p>\n
was   also    urged    before     the    High    Court   that   mere<\/p>\n
rejection of an application for leave to contest<\/p>\n
did not ipso facto entitle the landlord to an order<\/p>\n
of    eviction.        On    the    other       hand,    the    Rent<\/p>\n
Controller should have recorded the evidence of the<\/p>\n
landlord and it is only after such evidence was<\/p>\n
recorded and the Rent Controller was satisfied as<\/p>\n
to the existence of grounds for eviction of the<\/p>\n
tenant under Section 13-B of the 1949 Act, that the<\/p>\n
order of eviction could be passed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.    On    consideration    of    the    submissions      made   on<\/p>\n
behalf of the respective parties, the High Court<\/p>\n
took the view that the provisions of Section 18-A<\/p>\n
of the 1949 Act have an overriding effect on all<\/p>\n
other      laws   inconsistent     therewith      and    that   Sub-<\/p>\n
section (7) of Section 18-A of the 1949 Act and
\n                                                                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
Section 17 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts<\/p>\n
Act, 1882, were not attracted to the facts of the<\/p>\n
case or in a situation where leave to contest has<\/p>\n
been declined for any reason whatsoever.                The High<\/p>\n
Court further held that under the circumstances,<\/p>\n
there was no statutory obligation upon the Rent<\/p>\n
Controller to frame issues or to try the eviction<\/p>\n
petition by calling upon the petitioner to lead<\/p>\n
evidence. The High Court further held that refusal<\/p>\n
to grant leave to contest amounts to admission of<\/p>\n
the contents of the eviction petition and if the<\/p>\n
eviction petition itself satisfies the requirements<\/p>\n
of   Section   13-B   of    the    1949   Act,    an   order   of<\/p>\n
eviction has to follow as a matter of course.<\/p>\n
5.   It is against the said order of the learned<\/p>\n
Single   Judge   of   the   High    Court,   dismissing        the<\/p>\n
petitioner’s     Revision    Petition,     that   the    present<\/p>\n
Special Leave Petition has been filed.
\n                                                                            7<\/span><\/p>\n
6.     As    indicated          hereinbefore,      the     case    of     the<\/p>\n
Petitioner is that both the Rent Controller and the<\/p>\n
High Court had erred in law in holding that the<\/p>\n
provisions of the Limitation Act would not apply in<\/p>\n
a proceeding before the Rent Controller and that<\/p>\n
Section          18-A    of     the     1949    Act      would    have     an<\/p>\n
overriding             effect     over    Section        29(2)     of     the<\/p>\n
Limitation Act, 1963.                   It was reiterated that by<\/p>\n
virtue of Sub-section (7) of Section 18-A of the<\/p>\n
1949 Act, the procedure prescribed for trial of<\/p>\n
suits       in    the     Small    Causes       Courts    Act,    is     also<\/p>\n
applicable for trial of eviction petitions since<\/p>\n
by virtue of Section 17 of the Small Causes Courts<\/p>\n
Act,    the       Code    of    Civil     Procedure       has    been    made<\/p>\n
applicable to eviction proceedings as well.<\/p>\n
7.      Appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. Ujjal Singh,<\/p>\n
learned advocate, referred to and relied upon the<\/p>\n
decision          of     this     Court    in     Mukri     Gopalan       vs.
\n                                                                           8<\/span><\/p>\n
Cheppilat       Puthanpurajil         Aboobacker        [(1995)     5    SCC<\/p>\n
5],    wherein     a   similar        question      had   arisen        with<\/p>\n
regard    to    the    power     of    the     Appellate       Authority<\/p>\n
under Section 18 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and<\/p>\n
Rent Control) Act, 1965, to condone the delay in<\/p>\n
filing    an    appeal      after     expiry       of   the    period     of<\/p>\n
limitation prescribed under the Act.                          This Court<\/p>\n
held     that    the    conditions          for    applicability          of<\/p>\n
Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act were satisfied<\/p>\n
since    Section       18   is    a    special      law      and   in   the<\/p>\n
absence of any provision under the Limitation Act,<\/p>\n
for    filing    an    appeal,        the    period     of     limitation<\/p>\n
provided under Section 18 would have to be treated<\/p>\n
to be different from that under the Limitation Act.<\/p>\n
It was held that as a consequence, Section 5 of the<\/p>\n
Limitation Act would be automatically attracted to<\/p>\n
an appeal under Section 18 in the absence of any<\/p>\n
express    exclusion        under      the    Rent      Act.       It    was<\/p>\n
further     held       that      since       the    District       Judges
\n                                                                  9<\/span><\/p>\n
function as Appellate Authority under Section 18,<\/p>\n
such   an   authority    is    a   court    and    not    persona<\/p>\n
designata    and,    therefore,    entitled       to    resort   to<\/p>\n
Section 5 of the Limitation Act.              It was further<\/p>\n
held that the Appellate Authority constituted under<\/p>\n
Section 18 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent<\/p>\n
Control) Act, 1965, functions as a Court and as a<\/p>\n
result   the   period   of    limitation     under       the   said<\/p>\n
provisions     governing      appeals    would     be    computed<\/p>\n
keeping in view the provisions of Sections 4 to 24<\/p>\n
of the Limitation Act, 1963.            Reference was made to<\/p>\n
a decision of this Court in Gaya Prasad Kar vs.<\/p>\n
Subrata Kumar Banerjee<\/a> [(2005) 8 SCC 14], wherein<\/p>\n
it was held that having regard to the beneficial<\/p>\n
provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act,<\/p>\n
1956, which allowed extension of time for making<\/p>\n
deposit of arrears of rent, the provisions of the<\/p>\n
Limitation     Act    and,    in   particular,         Section    5<\/p>\n
thereof, would also be applicable.\n<\/p>\n
                                                               10<\/span><\/p>\n
8.     Yet another decision of this Court in the case<\/p>\n
of Akesh Wadhawan & Ors. vs. Jagdamba Industrial<\/p>\n
Corporation & Ors.<\/a> [(2002) 5 SCC 440], was referred<\/p>\n
to on behalf of the Petitioner in the context of<\/p>\n
the 1949 Act, in which it was held that subsidiary<\/p>\n
rules of interpretation envisage that in case of<\/p>\n
ambiguity,    a   provision    should    be   so   read   as   to<\/p>\n
avoid hardship, inconvenience, injustice, absurdity<\/p>\n
and anomaly.      It was held that since a statute can<\/p>\n
never be exhaustive, courts have jurisdiction to<\/p>\n
pass    procedural   orders,    though    not      specifically<\/p>\n
contemplated by statute and that such innovation is<\/p>\n
permissible on the basis of authority supported by<\/p>\n
the principles of justice, good sense and reason.<\/p>\n
9.     Certain other decisions were also referred to<\/p>\n
by learned counsel which are on similar lines.<\/p>\n
10. On behalf of the Respondent it was submitted<\/p>\n
that Section 13-B had been introduced in the 1949
\n                                                                        11<\/span><\/p>\n
Act by way of amendment in 2001 to make special<\/p>\n
provisions for Non-Resident Indians who return to<\/p>\n
India and are in need of immediate possession of<\/p>\n
their building or buildings let out by them.                         Such<\/p>\n
benefit had been made available to a Non-Resident<\/p>\n
Indian only after a period of five years from the<\/p>\n
date on which the Non-Resident Indian became the<\/p>\n
owner of such building.             It was contended that the<\/p>\n
provisions       of    the   1949   Act     and,    in     particular,<\/p>\n
Section        13-B    thereof,     would    have        to    be    very<\/p>\n
strictly construed on account of the object with<\/p>\n
which     it     had    been   enacted.            In     this      regard<\/p>\n
reference was made to a decision of this Court in<\/p>\n
Prithipal Singh vs. Satpal Singh (Dead) through its<\/p>\n
LRs. [(2010) 2 SCC 15], where an ex-parte eviction<\/p>\n
order based on ground of bonafide requirement of<\/p>\n
landlord        was    recalled     by    the      Rent       Controller<\/p>\n
exercising jurisdiction under Order 9 Rule 13 read<\/p>\n
with Order 37 Rule 4 and Section 151 of the Civil
\n                                                  12<\/span><\/p>\n
Procedure Code.   The said order was affirmed by the<\/p>\n
High Court observing that in view of Rule 23 of the<\/p>\n
Delhi Rent Control Rules, 1959, the Rent Controller<\/p>\n
is conferred with power to set aside the ex-parte<\/p>\n
order of eviction in exercise of jurisdiction under<\/p>\n
the aforesaid provisions of the Code.    On the said<\/p>\n
orders being   questioned in this Court it was held<\/p>\n
that Rule 23 of the aforesaid Rules could not be<\/p>\n
applied in view of Section 25-B which is a special<\/p>\n
code and provides for a specific and exhaustive<\/p>\n
procedure for eviction of a tenant by a landlord on<\/p>\n
ground of bonafide requirement.     The order of the<\/p>\n
High Court was, therefore, set aside and that of<\/p>\n
the Rent Controller was restored.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11. Reference was also made to a Bench decision of<\/p>\n
the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Ashwani Kumar<\/p>\n
Gupta vs. Siri Pal Jain [1998 (2) RCR 222], in a<\/p>\n
Civil Revision, where the very same question fell<\/p>\n
for consideration and it was held that when the
\n                                                                  13<\/span><\/p>\n
tenant had failed to file affidavit seeking leave<\/p>\n
to    contest    the     proceedings        within       the    time<\/p>\n
prescribed, the Rent Controller had no power to<\/p>\n
condone the delay.           Certain other cases were also<\/p>\n
referred to on the same lines relating to the 1949<\/p>\n
Act and Sections 13-B and 18-A thereof.<\/p>\n
12. From the materials on record it is clear that<\/p>\n
the    application       for       leave        to    contest   the<\/p>\n
application under Section 13-B of the 1949 Act has<\/p>\n
to be made within 15 days from the date of service<\/p>\n
of the summons.        In this case, the application for<\/p>\n
leave to contest the application was made one day<\/p>\n
after the said period had expired.                    The issue for<\/p>\n
consideration        before    us    is     whether       the   Rent<\/p>\n
Controller was right in rejecting the application<\/p>\n
on    the   ground    that    he    had    no    jurisdiction     to<\/p>\n
condone the delay under the Act.                     The matter was<\/p>\n
considered at length by the High Court, which, as<\/p>\n
indicated hereinabove, came to the conclusion that
\n                                                                       14<\/span><\/p>\n
Section 18-A of the 1949 Act would have an over-<\/p>\n
riding       effect     on   all     other      laws      inconsistent<\/p>\n
therewith and that Sub-Section (8) of Section 18-A<\/p>\n
of the 1949 Act and Section 17 of the Presidency<\/p>\n
Small Causes Courts Act, 1882, were not attracted<\/p>\n
to the facts of the case.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
13. The      views      expressed     by   the    High     Court     also<\/p>\n
formed    the     subject        matter    of    the      decision     in<\/p>\n
Prithipal       Singh’s      case    (supra),      though      in     the<\/p>\n
context of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and<\/p>\n
the rules framed thereunder.               This Court was of the<\/p>\n
view that Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control<\/p>\n
Act    was    a   complete        Code     by    itself     and     other<\/p>\n
provisions could not, therefore, be brought into<\/p>\n
play in such proceedings. In the instant case, the<\/p>\n
same principle would apply having regard to the<\/p>\n
fact     that     the     Rent      Controller      had     not      been<\/p>\n
conferred with power under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C.<\/p>\n
to recall an ex-parte order passed earlier.
\n                                                                      15<\/span><\/p>\n
14. Apart from the above is the view taken by this<\/p>\n
Court     in    Prakash       H.    Jain   vs.        Marie   Fernandes<\/a><\/p>\n
[(2003) 8 SCC 431], where it was specifically held<\/p>\n
that since the Competent Authority under Section 40<\/p>\n
of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, was not<\/p>\n
a court but a statutory authority with no power to<\/p>\n
condone     the    delay       in    filing      an     affidavit   and<\/p>\n
application       for    leave      to   contest,       the   Competent<\/p>\n
Authority had no other option but to pass an order<\/p>\n
of eviction in the manner envisaged under the Act.<\/p>\n
15. The decision in Mukri Gopalan’s case (supra)<\/p>\n
relied upon by Mr. Ujjal Singh is distinguishable<\/p>\n
from the facts of this case.                  In the facts of the<\/p>\n
said    case,     it    was   the    District      Judges     who   were<\/p>\n
discharging        the        functions       of       the    Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority and being a Court, it was held that the<\/p>\n
District       Judge,     functioning         as       the    Appellate
\n                                                                  16<\/span><\/p>\n
Authority, was a Court and not persona designata<\/p>\n
and was, therefore, entitled to resort to Section 5<\/p>\n
of the Limitation Act.              That is not so in the<\/p>\n
instant case where the Rent Controller appointed by<\/p>\n
the    State    Government   is     a   member   of   the     Punjab<\/p>\n
Civil Services and, therefore, a persona designata<\/p>\n
who would not be entitled to apply the provisions<\/p>\n
of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as in the<\/p>\n
other case.      The decision in Gaya Prasad Kar’s case<\/p>\n
(supra) is also of little help to the Petitioner<\/p>\n
since under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act,<\/p>\n
1956,    powers       have   been       vested   in     the    Rent<\/p>\n
Controller to extend the time for making deposits<\/p>\n
of arrears of rent, which would make the provisions<\/p>\n
of the Limitation Act applicable in such specific<\/p>\n
instances.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
16. The instant case stands on a different footing<\/p>\n
and, in our view, is covered by the decision of<\/p>\n
this    Court    in   Gaya   Prasad      Kar’s   case    (supra),
\n                                                                              17<\/span><\/p>\n
wherein it was held that the Competent Authority<\/p>\n
had    no     other    option             but   to    pass    an     order    of<\/p>\n
eviction since it had no power to condone the delay<\/p>\n
in filing an application for leave to contest.<\/p>\n
17. Section 13-B is a power given to a Non-Resident<\/p>\n
Indian      owner     of    a    building            to    obtain    immediate<\/p>\n
possession of a residential building or scheduled<\/p>\n
building when required for his or her use or for<\/p>\n
the    use    of     any    one       ordinarily           living    with    and<\/p>\n
dependent      on     him       or    her.           The    right    has    been<\/p>\n
limited to one application only during the life<\/p>\n
time     of    the     owner.               Section        18-A(2)    of     the<\/p>\n
aforesaid Act provides that after an application<\/p>\n
under    Section       13-B          is    received,        the     Controller<\/p>\n
shall issue summons for service on the tenant in<\/p>\n
the form specified in Schedule II.                            The said form<\/p>\n
indicates that within 15 days of service of the<\/p>\n
summons the tenant is required to appear before the<\/p>\n
Controller and apply for leave to contest the same.
\n                                                            18<\/span><\/p>\n
There is no specific provision to vest the Rent<\/p>\n
Controller with authority to extend the time for<\/p>\n
making of such affidavit and the application.              The<\/p>\n
Rent Controller being a creature of statute can<\/p>\n
only act in terms of the powers vested in him by<\/p>\n
statute    and    cannot,     therefore,     entertain      an<\/p>\n
application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act<\/p>\n
for condonation of delay since the statute does not<\/p>\n
vest him with such power.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
18. In such case, neither the Rent Controller nor<\/p>\n
the High Court had committed any error of law in<\/p>\n
rejecting the Petitioner’s application for seeking<\/p>\n
leave to contest the suit, since the same had been<\/p>\n
filed beyond the period prescribed in the form in<\/p>\n
Schedule   II    of   the   Act   referred   to   in   Section<\/p>\n
18-A(2) thereof.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                   19<\/span><\/p>\n
19. The   Special   Leave   Petition      must,              therefore,<\/p>\n
fail and is dismissed accordingly.               However, there<\/p>\n
will be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                       …………………………………………J.
\n                                       (ALTAMAS KABIR)<\/p>\n
                                       …………………………………………J.
\n                                       (A.K. PATNAIK)
\nNew Delhi
\nDated:27.08.2010<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Om Prakash vs Ashwani Kumar Bassi on 27 August, 2010 Bench: Altamas Kabir, A.K. Patnaik REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.24430 OF 2008 Om Prakash … Petitioner Vs. Ashwani Kumar Bassi … Respondent J U D G M E N T ALTAMAS […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-211247","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nOm Prakash vs Ashwani Kumar Bassi on 27 August, 2010 - 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\/om-prakash-vs-ashwani-kumar-bassi-on-27-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Om Prakash vs Ashwani Kumar Bassi on 27 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-prakash-vs-ashwani-kumar-bassi-on-27-august-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-19T07:04:33+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/om-prakash-vs-ashwani-kumar-bassi-on-27-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/om-prakash-vs-ashwani-kumar-bassi-on-27-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Om Prakash vs Ashwani Kumar Bassi on 27 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-19T07:04:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/om-prakash-vs-ashwani-kumar-bassi-on-27-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2629,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/om-prakash-vs-ashwani-kumar-bassi-on-27-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/om-prakash-vs-ashwani-kumar-bassi-on-27-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/om-prakash-vs-ashwani-kumar-bassi-on-27-august-2010\",\"name\":\"Om Prakash vs Ashwani Kumar Bassi on 27 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-19T07:04:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/om-prakash-vs-ashwani-kumar-bassi-on-27-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/om-prakash-vs-ashwani-kumar-bassi-on-27-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/om-prakash-vs-ashwani-kumar-bassi-on-27-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Om Prakash vs Ashwani Kumar Bassi on 27 August, 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":"Om Prakash vs Ashwani Kumar Bassi on 27 August, 2010 - 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\/om-prakash-vs-ashwani-kumar-bassi-on-27-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Om Prakash vs Ashwani Kumar Bassi on 27 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-prakash-vs-ashwani-kumar-bassi-on-27-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-19T07:04:33+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-prakash-vs-ashwani-kumar-bassi-on-27-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-prakash-vs-ashwani-kumar-bassi-on-27-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Om Prakash vs Ashwani Kumar Bassi on 27 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-19T07:04:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-prakash-vs-ashwani-kumar-bassi-on-27-august-2010"},"wordCount":2629,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-prakash-vs-ashwani-kumar-bassi-on-27-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-prakash-vs-ashwani-kumar-bassi-on-27-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-prakash-vs-ashwani-kumar-bassi-on-27-august-2010","name":"Om Prakash vs Ashwani Kumar Bassi on 27 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-19T07:04:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-prakash-vs-ashwani-kumar-bassi-on-27-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-prakash-vs-ashwani-kumar-bassi-on-27-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-prakash-vs-ashwani-kumar-bassi-on-27-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Om Prakash vs Ashwani Kumar Bassi on 27 August, 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\/211247","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=211247"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/211247\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=211247"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=211247"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=211247"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}