{"id":213878,"date":"2010-01-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxmanji-vs-suryakumar-on-12-january-2010"},"modified":"2016-09-30T01:40:06","modified_gmt":"2016-09-29T20:10:06","slug":"laxmanji-vs-suryakumar-on-12-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxmanji-vs-suryakumar-on-12-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Laxmanji vs Suryakumar on 12 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Laxmanji vs Suryakumar on 12 January, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M.R. Shah,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/12587\/2009\t 5\/ 7\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 12587 of 2009\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 12588 of 2009\n \n\n===================================\n\n\n \n\nLAXMANJI\nMANGAJI THAKORE &amp; 4 - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSURYAKUMAR\nJAMIYATRAM PANDYA, THRO POA DINESH JAYANTILAL &amp; 11 -\nRespondent(s)\n \n\n===================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nAMAR D MITHANI for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 3,3.2.1 - 5. \nNone for\nRespondent(s) : 1 - 2, 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3,2.2.4 -\n12. \n=================================== \n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 12\/01\/2010 \n\n \n\n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>1.\tAs<br \/>\ncommon question of law and facts arise in both these petitions and in<br \/>\nboth these petitions, common judgment and order passed by the Gujarat<br \/>\nRevenue Tribunal is under challenge, both these petitions are being<br \/>\ndisposed of by this common order.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tBy<br \/>\nway of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,<br \/>\ncommon petitioners have prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and<br \/>\norder quashing and setting aside the impugned common judgment and<br \/>\norder passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 27.3.2008 passed<br \/>\nin Revision Application TEN.BA Nos. 153 of 2005 and 154 of 200, by<br \/>\nwhich the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal has dismissed the said revision<br \/>\napplications.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tThe<br \/>\nfacts leading to the present Special Civil Applications  in nutshell<br \/>\nare as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\ndispute is with respect to the land bearing survey No. 201,<br \/>\nadmeasuring 2 Acres and 24 Gunthas situated in the sim of Village of<br \/>\nVasna Tal: City, Dist. Ahmedabad. That the petitioners submitted one<br \/>\napplication under Section 70 B of the Bombay Tenancy Act to declare<br \/>\nthem as tenant (Ganotia) which was registered as Tenancy Case No. 46<br \/>\nof 1995. Along with the said application, petitioners submitted<br \/>\napplication seeking interim relief under Section 70(nb).. That on<br \/>\naccount of the compromise between the parties, Tenancy Case No. 46 of<br \/>\n1995 pending before the Mamlatdar and ALT came to be withdrawn by the<br \/>\npetitioners. The Mamlatdar &amp; ALT, after verifying the withdrawal,<br \/>\ndismissed the said application by his order dated 17.12.1997. It<br \/>\nappears that the order of Mamlatdar and ALT dated 17.12.1997 was<br \/>\ntaken in Suo Motu Revision by the Deputy Collector, (Land Reforms),<br \/>\nAppeals, Ahmedabad by registering the Revision Case No. 213 of 1998.<br \/>\nIt appears that during the course of hearing of the said Revision<br \/>\nApplication No. 213 of 1998, it was contended on behalf of the<br \/>\npetitioner that originally, village Vasna was   Inami village and the<br \/>\ngrandfather of the petitioner was rdeclared tenant of the suit land<br \/>\nand thereafter their names were recorded as tenant in the year 1957.<br \/>\nIt was also submitted before the Deputy Collector by the petitioners<br \/>\nthat they are residing in the suit land with their family. It was<br \/>\nalso contended that Regular Civil Suit No. 2628 of 1982 and 4539 of<br \/>\n1994 were pending in the Civil Court. It was also further submitted<br \/>\nthat father of the opponent who was an advocate did not allow the<br \/>\napplicant to  prove their rights and matter was got withdrawn by<br \/>\npracticing fraud upon them. It was also submitted on behalf of the<br \/>\npetitioners that the withdrawal was also made behind  their back.<br \/>\nThat the Deputy Collector by a reasoned order confirmed the order<br \/>\npassed by the Mamlatdar and ALT dated 17.12.1997, by his order dated<br \/>\n17.3.2005. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by<br \/>\nthe Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Ahmedabad dated 17.3.2005,<br \/>\npetitioners preferred Revision Application TEN.BA No. 154 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThat<br \/>\nagainst the order of the Mamlatdar and ALT dated 17.12.1997, passed<br \/>\nin Tenancy Case No. 46 of 1995 the petitioner preferred Tenancy<br \/>\nAppeal before the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Appeals which came<br \/>\nto be rejected by the Deputy Collector by order dated 28.4.2005 on<br \/>\nthe ground that as the order of the Mamlatdar and ALT  dated<br \/>\n17.12.1997 was taken in Suo Motu Revision by him and the same was<br \/>\ndecided on 17.3.2005. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order<br \/>\npassed by the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Appeals, Ahmedabad<br \/>\ndated 28.4.2004, the petitioners preferred Revision Application<br \/>\nTEN.BA Nos. 153 of 2005. Both the aforesaid revision applications<br \/>\nbeing  Revision Application TEN.BA Nos. 153 of 2005 and 154 of 2005<br \/>\nwere consolidated and heard together and by impugned common judgment<br \/>\nand order, Gujarat Revenue Tribunal has dismissed both the aforesaid<br \/>\nrevision applications. Hence, the petitioners have preferred the<br \/>\npresent Special Civil Application  under Article 227 of the<br \/>\nConstitution of India challenging the common judgment and order<br \/>\npassed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in aforesaid Revision<br \/>\nApplication TEN.BA Nos. 153 of 2005 and 154 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tShri<br \/>\nAmar D Mithani, learned advocate for the petitioners has vehemently<br \/>\nsubmitted that Gujarat Revenue Tribunal has materially erred in<br \/>\ndismissing the aforesaid revision applications confirming the orders<br \/>\npassed by the Mamlatdar &amp; ALT as well as the Deputy Collector<br \/>\n(Land Reforms), Appeals. It is submitted that hearing of the revision<br \/>\napplications was scheduled on 13.2.2006 and thereafter impugned order<br \/>\ncame to be passed on 27.3.2008 i.e. after a period of two years and<br \/>\none month so in all fairness,one another opportunity of hearing was<br \/>\nrequired to be afforded to the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tIt<br \/>\nis further submitted that even on merits also the judgment and order<br \/>\npassed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal is required to be quashed and<br \/>\nset aside. It is submitted that the Tribunal has materially erred in<br \/>\nnot considering the specific case of the petitioners that the<br \/>\nwithdrawal pursis dated 22.5.1997 was not signed by the petitioners<br \/>\nand the  advocate, who produced it, was not even engaged by the<br \/>\npetitioners. It is further submitted that even the learned tribunal<br \/>\nhas not considered the factum of possession of the petitioners though<br \/>\nit was specifically pleaded. It is submitted that as such withdrawal<br \/>\npursis alleged to have been submitted by the petitioners to withdraw<br \/>\nthe Tenancy Case was behind the back of the petitioners and the<br \/>\naforesaid aspect was required to be considered by the Gujarat Revenue<br \/>\nTribunal as valuable rights of the petitioners have been taken away.<br \/>\nNo other submissions have been made.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tHaving<br \/>\nheard the learned advocate for the petitioners and considering the<br \/>\nimpugned common judgment and order passed by the Gujarat Revenue<br \/>\nTribunal, it appears that the Mamlatdar and ALT passed an order dated<br \/>\n17.12.1997 dismissing the Tenancy Case No. 46 of 1995 and the order<br \/>\npassed by the Mamlatdar and ALT dated 17.12.1997 was taken in Suo<br \/>\nMotu revision by the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Appeals,<br \/>\nAhmedabad in the year 1998 itself and the petitioners appeared before<br \/>\nthe Deputy Collector in the said proceedings meaning thereby they<br \/>\nwere aware of the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT dated<br \/>\n17.12.1997, still they did not challenge the same by way of appeal<br \/>\ntill April 2005 and only after Deputy Collector (Land Reforms),<br \/>\nAppeals, Ahmedabad confirmed the order passed by the Mamlatdar and<br \/>\nALT dated 17.12.1997 by order dated 17.3.2005, the petitioners<br \/>\npreferred Tenancy Appeal on 13.5.2005. Thus, the order passed by the<br \/>\nMamlatdar and ALT was not challenged by the petitioners for long<br \/>\nperiod of 7 years. Considering the fact that the order passed by the<br \/>\nMamlatdar &amp; ALT dated 17.12.1997 was confirmed by the Deputy<br \/>\nCollector (Land Reforms), Appeals, Ahmedabad by an order dated<br \/>\n17.3.2005, appeal preferred by the petitioners in the month of April<br \/>\n2005 against the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT dated<br \/>\n17.12.1997 is rightly rejected by the Deputy Collector (Land<br \/>\nReforms), Appeals, Ahmedabad by order dated 28.4.2005 (which was the<br \/>\nsubject matter of the revision application TEN.BA No. 153 of 2005) on<br \/>\nthe ground that once the order in appeal has been confirmed by the<br \/>\nDeputy Collector (Land Reforms), Appeal against the main order also<br \/>\ndeserve to be dismissed. No illegality has been committed by the<br \/>\nDeputy Collector (Land Reforms) Appeals, Ahmedabad in rejecting the<br \/>\nappeal preferred by the petitioners on 13.4.2005 which is rightly<br \/>\nconfirmed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by dismissing the Revision<br \/>\nApplication TEN.BA No. 153 of 2005. Under the circumstances, judgment<br \/>\nand order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal passed in Revision<br \/>\nApplication TEN.BA No. 153 of 2005 is not required to be interfered<br \/>\nwith by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the<br \/>\nConstitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tNow<br \/>\nso far as the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal passed in<br \/>\nRevision Application TEN.BA No. 154 of 2005 in dismissing the same<br \/>\nand confirming the order passed by the Deputy Collector (Land<br \/>\nReforms), Appeals, Ahmedabad dated 17.3.2005 passed in Suo Motu<br \/>\nRevision Case No. 213 of 1998 in confirming the order passed by the<br \/>\nMamlatdar and ALT dated 17.12.1997 passed in Tenancy Case No. 46 of<br \/>\n1995 is concerned, it is to be noted that there were two Civil Suits<br \/>\npending between the parties with respect to the very land in question<br \/>\nbeing Regular Civil Suit Nos. 2628 of 1982 and 4539 of 1994 and there<br \/>\nwas a compromise between the parties in the said suit on 23.5.1997and<br \/>\na decree came to be passed by the Civil Court and the very<br \/>\npetitioners acknowledged and accepted the ownership and the<br \/>\npossession of the  opponent. A similar compromise was arrived at in<br \/>\nTenancy Case No. 46 of 1995 and the same came to be withdrawn by the<br \/>\npetitioners. Considering the compromise arrived at between the<br \/>\nparties dated 23.5.1997 in Regular Civil Suit Nos.  2628 of 1982 and<br \/>\n4539 of 1994 and a decree came to be passed by the Civil Court, it<br \/>\ncannot be said that the compromise pursis submitted by the<br \/>\npetitioners before the Mamlatdar &amp; ALT was behind the back of the<br \/>\npetitioners. The petitioners have never challenged the compromise<br \/>\narrived at between the parties on 23.5.1997 by which they<br \/>\nacknowledged and accepted ownership and possession of the respondent<br \/>\nherein. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the<br \/>\nGujarat Revenue Tribunal has rightly rejected \/ dismissed the<br \/>\nRevision Application TENBA. No. 154 of 2005 confirming the order<br \/>\npassed by the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Appeals, Ahmedabad<br \/>\ndated 17.3.2005 passed in Suo Motu Revision confirming the order<br \/>\npassed by the Mamlatdar and ALT dated 17.12.1997, which does not<br \/>\ncalls for the interference of this Court in exercise of powers under<br \/>\nArticle 227 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tIn<br \/>\nview of the above and for the reasons stated above, there is no<br \/>\nsubstance in the present petition, which deserves to be dismissed and<br \/>\nis accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>(M.R.SHAH,<br \/>\nJ.)<\/p>\n<p>kaushik<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Laxmanji vs Suryakumar on 12 January, 2010 Author: M.R. Shah,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/12587\/2009 5\/ 7 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12587 of 2009 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12588 of 2009 =================================== LAXMANJI MANGAJI THAKORE &amp; 4 &#8211; Petitioner(s) [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-213878","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Laxmanji vs Suryakumar on 12 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxmanji-vs-suryakumar-on-12-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Laxmanji vs Suryakumar on 12 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxmanji-vs-suryakumar-on-12-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-01-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-29T20:10:06+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxmanji-vs-suryakumar-on-12-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxmanji-vs-suryakumar-on-12-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Laxmanji vs Suryakumar on 12 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-29T20:10:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxmanji-vs-suryakumar-on-12-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1555,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxmanji-vs-suryakumar-on-12-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxmanji-vs-suryakumar-on-12-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxmanji-vs-suryakumar-on-12-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Laxmanji vs Suryakumar on 12 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-29T20:10:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxmanji-vs-suryakumar-on-12-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxmanji-vs-suryakumar-on-12-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxmanji-vs-suryakumar-on-12-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Laxmanji vs Suryakumar on 12 January, 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":"Laxmanji vs Suryakumar on 12 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxmanji-vs-suryakumar-on-12-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Laxmanji vs Suryakumar on 12 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxmanji-vs-suryakumar-on-12-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-29T20:10:06+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxmanji-vs-suryakumar-on-12-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxmanji-vs-suryakumar-on-12-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Laxmanji vs Suryakumar on 12 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-29T20:10:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxmanji-vs-suryakumar-on-12-january-2010"},"wordCount":1555,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxmanji-vs-suryakumar-on-12-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxmanji-vs-suryakumar-on-12-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxmanji-vs-suryakumar-on-12-january-2010","name":"Laxmanji vs Suryakumar on 12 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-29T20:10:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxmanji-vs-suryakumar-on-12-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxmanji-vs-suryakumar-on-12-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxmanji-vs-suryakumar-on-12-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Laxmanji vs Suryakumar on 12 January, 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\/213878","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=213878"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/213878\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=213878"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=213878"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=213878"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}