{"id":220780,"date":"2009-02-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chintamani-vs-sapan-kumar-das-on-16-february-2009"},"modified":"2015-06-07T02:22:50","modified_gmt":"2015-06-06T20:52:50","slug":"chintamani-vs-sapan-kumar-das-on-16-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chintamani-vs-sapan-kumar-das-on-16-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"Chintamani vs Sapan Kumar Das on 16 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n
Chintamani vs Sapan Kumar Das on 16 February, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n         HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR        \n\n\n\n\n             Second Appeal No 205 of 1990\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                    Chintamani\n                            ...Petitioners\n\n\n                    versus\n\n\n\n                     Sapan  Kumar  Das\n                                   ...Respondents\n\n\n\n\n!           Shri H S Patel, counsel for the appellant\n\n\n\n\n^           Shri   Abhijeet  Sarkar,  counsel   for   the respondent\n\n\n\n\n             Honble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J\n\n\n\n\n\n              Dated:16\/02\/2009\n\n\n:               Judgment\n\n     Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908\n\n\n\n\n                       JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
    (Delivered on this 16th day of February, 2009)<\/p>\n
      This  is the unsuccessful tenant’s second appeal.<\/p>\n
Civil Judge Class-II, Jashpurnagar had, by judgment and<\/p>\n
decree  dated  30-11-1987 in Civil  Suit  No.55-A\/1987,<\/p>\n
decreed  the  respondent\/plaintiff’s suit for  eviction<\/p>\n
under    Section    12(1)(e)   of   the    Chhattisgarh<\/p>\n
Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (henceforth `the Act’).<\/p>\n
The  appeal  preferred  by the appellant\/tenant  (Civil<\/p>\n
Appeal  No.10-A\/1989)  was also dismissed  by  the  Ist<\/p>\n
Additional  Judge  to the District  Judge,  Raigarh  by<\/p>\n
judgment and decree dated 02-04-1990. <\/p>\n
(2)   In  this  appeal, it is not in  dispute  that  in<\/p>\n
relation  to the suit accommodation let out purely  for<\/p>\n
residence, the appellant\/defendant is the tenant of the<\/p>\n
respondent\/plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
\n(3)  The respondent\/plaintiff had, by instituting Civil<\/p>\n
Suit No.55-A\/1987 on 17-07-1984, sought eviction of the<\/p>\n
appellant\/defendant from the suit accommodation,  i.e.,<\/p>\n
House  No.203,  situated  in Kevda  Badi,  Ward  No.15,<\/p>\n
Raigarh  on  the  ground  that  he  required  the  suit<\/p>\n
accommodation bona fide for residence as also  for  his<\/p>\n
business  since notice dated 23-04-1984 was  served  on<\/p>\n
him  by  his  brothers Tapan and Pawan to vacate  their<\/p>\n
garage  and to shift his gas-welding plant and also  to<\/p>\n
make  arrangement for living elsewhere.  It was averred<\/p>\n
that  the  plaintiff  had no other reasonably  suitable<\/p>\n
accommodation  of  his  own in  Raigarh  for  the  said<\/p>\n
purpose.\n<\/p>\n
\n(4)   The appellant\/defendant resisted the suit on  the<\/p>\n
ground  that  the alleged notice dated  23-04-1984  was<\/p>\n
fake  and  a  mere pretext for making out a ground  for<\/p>\n
eviction.     It    was    not   pleaded    that    the<\/p>\n
respondent\/plaintiff had, in his vacant possession  any<\/p>\n
other  reasonably suitable accommodation for  residence<\/p>\n
in Raigarh.\n<\/p>\n
\n(5)   In Civil Appeal No.10-A\/1989 an application under<\/p>\n
Order  6  Rule  17 of the Code of Civil  Procedure  was<\/p>\n
filed by the appellant\/defendant for incorporating  the<\/p>\n
following amendment in the written statement:<\/p>\n
     “okni=  dh dafMdk 12 ds mijkUr fuEufyf[kr  rF;
\n     laca\/kh vfHkopu tksM+us dh Lohd`fr nh tk;%&
\n          dafMdk 12 ds mijkUr 12 ,v+
\n     12  ,v+     ;g  fd  oknh dk ,d  fjgk;’kh  edku
\n     oknxzLr  edku ds fiNokMs+ esa gS A   mDr  edku
\n     eas eugj.k flag Bkdqj fdjk;snkj Fkk A  mlus lu
\n     1983  ds vizSy & ebZ ekg esa [kkyh dj  fn;k  A
\n     mDr  edku  3 & 4 ekg rd [kkyh jgk rnmijkUr  lu
\n     1984  esa  oknh us mDr edku dks ,d gjhjke  dks
\n     tuojh  lu 1984 esa 80+ :i;s ekgokjh fdjk;s  ij
\n     fn;k  A  bl rjg oknh dks edku dh vko’;drk ugha
\n     gS A”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
By   the  impugned  judgment  and  decree,  the   above<\/p>\n
application as also the appeal were dismissed.<\/p>\n
(6)    The   following  questions  of  law  arise   for<\/p>\n
determination in this appeal:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     “1.  Whether the decree of eviction granted by
\n     lower  court against the appellant  tenant  on
\n     grounds under Section 12(1)(e)(f) of the  M.P.
\n     Accommodation  Control Act, 1961  is  vitiated
\n     due  to  non  consideration of the  fact  that
\n     there is no evidence led by the landlord  that
\n     the  existing accommodation with him  was  not
\n     suitable for his needs?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2.    Whether the decree of eviction is bad in
\n     the   absence   of  proof  of  partition   and
\n     allotment  of  the suit accommodation  to  the
\n     share  of  the respondent and the  finding  in
\n     that  respect of the first appellate Court  is
\n     sustainable in law?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3.    Whether  the first appellate  Court  was
\n     wrong  in  dismissing the application  of  the
\n     tenant under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. for
\n     amending his written statement?”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(7)    Shri   H.S.Patel,  learned   counsel   for   the<\/p>\n
appellant\/defendant placed reliance  on  North  Eastern<\/p>\n
Railway  Admin, Gorakhpur vs. Bhagwan Das (D) By  Lrs.,<\/a> <\/p>\n
2008  SAR  (Civil)  490 while arguing  that  the  lower<\/p>\n
appellate  Court ought to have allowed the  application<\/p>\n
for  amendment  under Order 6 Rule 17 of  the  Code  of<\/p>\n
Civil  Procedure  filed  by the appellant\/defendant  to<\/p>\n
introduce  a subsequent event by way of pleadings.   It<\/p>\n
was  urged  that  the amendment if allowed  would  have<\/p>\n
shown  that  a  reasonably  suitable  accommodation  in<\/p>\n
Raigarh  had  been  let out by the respondent\/plaintiff<\/p>\n
after  it  fell  vacant.  It was also argued  that  the<\/p>\n
decree  for  eviction of the tenant on the basis  of  a<\/p>\n
composite   need   could  not  be  passed   since   the<\/p>\n
accommodation  was  let  out  purely  for   residential<\/p>\n
purpose.  Reliance was placed on Smt. Sarla Devi  Gupta<\/p>\n
vs. Smt. Tara Devi Dubey,<\/a> 2007 (3) C.G.L.J. 88.<\/p>\n
(8)        On  the  other  hand, Shri Abhijeet  Sarkar,<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the respondent\/plaintiff argued  in<\/p>\n
support  of the impugned judgment and decree and  urged <\/p>\n
that  the  respondent\/plaintiff had proved  the  notice<\/p>\n
dated  23-04-1984  Ex.P-6 given by his  brothers  which<\/p>\n
would  go  to  show  that the respondent\/plaintiff  was<\/p>\n
asked to vacate the joint family residence and also the<\/p>\n
garage   where  he  was  carrying  on  his  gas-welding<\/p>\n
business.   It  was  further urged that  the  suit  was<\/p>\n
instituted  on 17-07-1984 and the amendment  sought  by<\/p>\n
the appellant\/defendant revealed that the accommodation<\/p>\n
on vacation by Manharan Singh Thakur, a tenant in April-<\/p>\n
May,  1983, the respondent\/plaintiff had let  out  that<\/p>\n
accommodation in January, 1984.  It was urged that  the<\/p>\n
notice  to vacate the joint family residence was  given<\/p>\n
by  the  brothers of the respondent\/plaintiff on 23-04-<\/p>\n
1984, i.e., much after the respondent\/plaintiff had let<\/p>\n
out  the  abovementioned accommodation  to  Hariram  in<\/p>\n
January,   1984.    In   a  suit  for   eviction,   the<\/p>\n
respondent\/plaintiff  was required  to  establish  bona<\/p>\n
fide  requirement  on the date of the suit,  therefore,<\/p>\n
the  lower  appellate  Court was  wholly  justified  in<\/p>\n
rejecting the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of  the<\/p>\n
Code    of    Civil    Procedure    filed    by     the<\/p>\n
appellant\/defendant.\n<\/p>\n
\n(9)   Having heard the rival contentions, I have perused<\/p>\n
the impugned judgment and decree as also the record.  It<\/p>\n
is  well  settled  that  an accommodation  let  out  for<\/p>\n
residential purpose cannot be got evicted under  law  on<\/p>\n
the  ground of bona fide requirement for non-residential<\/p>\n
purpose.  In a case where the accommodation is  let  out<\/p>\n
purely for residential purpose and a composite need  for<\/p>\n
residence as well as non-residence is put forth  by  the<\/p>\n
landlord,   the  Court  has  to  examine   whether   the<\/p>\n
requirement  of  the accommodation by  the  landlord  is<\/p>\n
predominantly residential or not.  If the Court comes to<\/p>\n
the  conclusion that the landlord predominantly requires<\/p>\n
the accommodation for residential purpose, then a decree<\/p>\n
for eviction under Section 12(1)(e) of the Act could  be<\/p>\n
passed.   On the other hand, if the Court comes  to  the<\/p>\n
conclusion that the landlord predominantly requires  the<\/p>\n
accommodation for non-residential purpose, a decree  for<\/p>\n
eviction  could  not  be  passed  against  the   tenant.<\/p>\n
Statement  on  oath  of  the respondent\/plaintiff  Sapan<\/p>\n
Kumar Das was recorded under Order 10 Rule 2 of the Code  <\/p>\n
of  Civil  Procedure by the trial Court  on  21-01-1986,<\/p>\n
wherein he stated as under:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     “——————-esjk Lor% dk xSl  osfYMax
\n     dk nqdku gS- tks fd esjs NksVs HkkbZ dh fgLls
\n     dh  gS-  blfy;s eq>s oknxzLr edku  esa  nqdku
\n     LFkkfir djuk gS- blfy;s eq>s oknxzLr edku  dh
\n     t:jr gS-”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This clearly goes to show that the respondent\/plaintiff<\/p>\n
required the suit accommodation for setting up his gas-<\/p>\n
welding plant, i.e., non-residential purpose.   In  his<\/p>\n
testimony recorded on 09-01-1987, Sapan Kumar  Das  had  <\/p>\n
stated in paragraph 3 as under:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     “oknxzLr  edku ds vykok jk;x<+ 'kgj  esa  esjs
\n     ikl  jgus ds fy, dksbZ edku ugha gS]  eSa  xSl
\n     osfYMax  dk  dke djrk gWwA eSa vius  HkkbZ  ds
\n     xSjst esa dke dj jgk gWwA oknxzLr edku esa eSa
\n     fuokl  djuk pkgrk gWw vkSj lkFk gh lkFk  xSjst
\n     [kksydj xSl osfYMax dk dke djuk pkgrk gWwA"\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
A perusal of the notice Ex.P-6, which furnished a cause<\/p>\n
of  action  in favour of the respondent\/plaintiff  also<\/p>\n
shows  that on account of the use of the garage by  the<\/p>\n
respondent\/plaintiff for a gas-welding  plant,  lot  of<\/p>\n
disturbance  was being caused.  It is, therefore,  safe<\/p>\n
to   presume   that  the  requirement   of   the   suit<\/p>\n
accommodation    by   the   respondent\/plaintiff    was<\/p>\n
predominantly   for   non-residential   purpose.     In<\/p>\n
paragraph 10 of his testimony, the respondent\/plaintiff<\/p>\n
further  stated that about 1+ years before deposing  on<\/p>\n
09-01-1987  before  the trial Court, the  accommodation<\/p>\n
occupied  by Dharnidhar Shadangi in the first floor  of<\/p>\n
his house had also fallen vacant.  This clearly goes to<\/p>\n
show  that  the requirement for residence projected  by<\/p>\n
the  respondent\/plaintiff was  not  bona  fide  and  he<\/p>\n
predominantly required the suit accommodation for using<\/p>\n
it   for   establishing  his  gas-welding  plant.    In<\/p>\n
paragraph 11 of its judgment, the trial Court had  also<\/p>\n
mentioned as under:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     “11.  mijksDr rF;ksa ds vykok oknh  liu  dqekj
\n     (ok0lk0  1A  ds vuqlkj og xSl osfYMax  dk  dke
\n     djrk  gS vkSj mls xSl osfYMax dh e’khu  cVokjs
\n     esa  feyh  gS vkSj og vius HkkbZ ds xSjst  esa
\n     xsSl  osfYMax dk dke dj jgk gS mlds HkkbZ  mls
\n     nqdku  ls  tkus  ds fy, dg jgs gSa  blfy;s  og
\n     oknxzLr edku esa xSjst [kksydj xSl osfYMax  dk
\n     dke  djuk pkgrk gSA izfroknh fpUrke.kh (iz0lk0
\n     1A us ;g crk;k gS fd oknh M&k;Ogj gS vkSj igys
\n     vkj0ds0  fey jk;x<+ esa thi pykus dk dke  djrk
\n     FkkA ysfdu oknh }kjk ukSdjh fd, tkus ds laca\/k
\n     esa  izfroknh us u rks dksbZ izek.k is'k  fd;k
\n     gS  vksSj u gh oknh ls ftjg ds nkSjku mDr  rF;
\n     dks  yk;k  gSA cfYd mlds foijhr Lo;aa izfroknh
\n     fpUrke.kh rFkk mlds xokg 'kaHkw (iz0lk0 2A  us
\n     oknh  dks  iqfyl ykbu ds lkeus xSjst  esa  xSl
\n     osfYMax  dk dke djuk Lohdkj fd;k gSA  tSlk  fd
\n     mij dh dafMdk dzekad 10 esa ;g mYys[k fd;k x;k
\n     gS fd oknxzLr edku fuokl ds vykos xSjst ds fy,
\n     Hkh mi;qDr gSA"\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The   above   observation  of  the  trial  Court   also<\/p>\n
substantiates  the  inference  drawn  by  me  that  the<\/p>\n
requirement of the suit accommodation projected by  the<\/p>\n
respondent\/plaintiff   was   predominantly   for   non-<\/p>\n
residential  purpose.  In this view of the  matter,  an<\/p>\n
accommodation let out for residential purpose could not<\/p>\n
be  got  evicted on the ground of requirement for  non-<\/p>\n
residential purpose.  Both the Courts below have, thus,<\/p>\n
erred  in law in granting a decree for eviction of  the<\/p>\n
appellant\/tenant  under Section 12(1)(e)  of  the  Act.<\/p>\n
The  first  substantial question of law is  accordingly<\/p>\n
answered  that  the decree for eviction  under  Section<\/p>\n
12(1)(e)  of  the  Act granted by the trial  Court  and<\/p>\n
affirmed by the lower appellate Court is liable  to  be<\/p>\n
set aside.\n<\/p>\n
\n(10)    Since    the    learned   counsel    for    the<\/p>\n
appellant\/defendant had, at the very  outset,  admitted<\/p>\n
that  the  relationship of landlord and tenant  existed<\/p>\n
between     the     appellant\/defendant     and     the<\/p>\n
respondent\/plaintiff, the second  substantial  question<\/p>\n
of  law loses its significance and would not arise  for<\/p>\n
determination of this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\n(11)  So far as the rejection of the application  under<\/p>\n
Order  6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure by  the<\/p>\n
lower appellate Court is concerned, the trial Court had<\/p>\n
decided  Civil Suit No.55-A\/1987 on 30-11-1987.   There<\/p>\n
is  nothing to show that the application for  amendment<\/p>\n
could  not  have been filed in the trial Court  despite<\/p>\n
due  diligence.  Since the cause of action had  accrued<\/p>\n
to the plaintiff pursuant to a notice dated 23-04-1984,<\/p>\n
the  letting  out of an accommodation that  had  fallen<\/p>\n
vacant,  by the respondent\/plaintiff in January,  1984,<\/p>\n
would  be  of  no  consequence because  the  bona  fide<\/p>\n
requirement projected by the landlord is to be assessed<\/p>\n
on  the  date of suit.  The lower appellate Court  was,<\/p>\n
thus,  wholly  justified in rejecting  the  application<\/p>\n
under  Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil  Procedure.<\/p>\n
The  last  substantial question of law  is,  therefore,<\/p>\n
answered in the negative.\n<\/p>\n
\n(12)  In  the  result,  the  appeal  is  allowed.   The<\/p>\n
impugned  judgment  and  decree  passed  by  the  lower<\/p>\n
appellate Court as also the judgment and decree  passed<\/p>\n
by  the  trial  Court  are  set  aside.   The  suit  is<\/p>\n
dismissed.  In the facts and circumstances of the case,<\/p>\n
the parties shall bear their own costs.<\/p>\n
(13) A decree be drawn accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
                                                JUDGE<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court Chintamani vs Sapan Kumar Das on 16 February, 2009 HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Second Appeal No 205 of 1990 Chintamani …Petitioners versus Sapan Kumar Das …Respondents ! Shri H S Patel, counsel for the appellant ^ Shri Abhijeet Sarkar, counsel for the respondent Honble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J Dated:16\/02\/2009 […]<\/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":[12,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-220780","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nChintamani vs Sapan Kumar Das on 16 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chintamani-vs-sapan-kumar-das-on-16-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chintamani vs Sapan Kumar Das on 16 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chintamani-vs-sapan-kumar-das-on-16-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-06T20:52:50+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chintamani-vs-sapan-kumar-das-on-16-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chintamani-vs-sapan-kumar-das-on-16-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chintamani vs Sapan Kumar Das on 16 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-06T20:52:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chintamani-vs-sapan-kumar-das-on-16-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1973,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Chattisgarh High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chintamani-vs-sapan-kumar-das-on-16-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chintamani-vs-sapan-kumar-das-on-16-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chintamani-vs-sapan-kumar-das-on-16-february-2009\",\"name\":\"Chintamani vs Sapan Kumar Das on 16 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-06T20:52:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chintamani-vs-sapan-kumar-das-on-16-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chintamani-vs-sapan-kumar-das-on-16-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chintamani-vs-sapan-kumar-das-on-16-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chintamani vs Sapan Kumar Das on 16 February, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Chintamani vs Sapan Kumar Das on 16 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chintamani-vs-sapan-kumar-das-on-16-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chintamani vs Sapan Kumar Das on 16 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chintamani-vs-sapan-kumar-das-on-16-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-06T20:52:50+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chintamani-vs-sapan-kumar-das-on-16-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chintamani-vs-sapan-kumar-das-on-16-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chintamani vs Sapan Kumar Das on 16 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-06T20:52:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chintamani-vs-sapan-kumar-das-on-16-february-2009"},"wordCount":1973,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Chattisgarh High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chintamani-vs-sapan-kumar-das-on-16-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chintamani-vs-sapan-kumar-das-on-16-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chintamani-vs-sapan-kumar-das-on-16-february-2009","name":"Chintamani vs Sapan Kumar Das on 16 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-06T20:52:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chintamani-vs-sapan-kumar-das-on-16-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chintamani-vs-sapan-kumar-das-on-16-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chintamani-vs-sapan-kumar-das-on-16-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chintamani vs Sapan Kumar Das on 16 February, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/220780","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=220780"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/220780\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=220780"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=220780"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=220780"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}