{"id":228410,"date":"2002-11-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-11-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aarohi-builders-pvt-ltd-and-ors-vs-shri-rajeshwar-and-ors-on-22-november-2002"},"modified":"2015-08-02T20:32:26","modified_gmt":"2015-08-02T15:02:26","slug":"aarohi-builders-pvt-ltd-and-ors-vs-shri-rajeshwar-and-ors-on-22-november-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aarohi-builders-pvt-ltd-and-ors-vs-shri-rajeshwar-and-ors-on-22-november-2002","title":{"rendered":"Aarohi Builders Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. vs Shri Rajeshwar And Ors. on 22 November, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Aarohi Builders Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. vs Shri Rajeshwar And Ors. on 22 November, 2002<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 102 (2003) DLT 686, 2003 (67) DRJ 169<\/div>\n
Author: C K Mahajan<\/div>\n
Bench: C Mahajan<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
C. K. Mahajan, J. <\/p>\n
 1. These are the applications filed on behalf
\nof the plaintiffs under Order 22 Rules 4 and 5 for
\nbringing the legal heirs of defendant No.1 on record
\nand to set aside the abatement, and under Section 5 of
\nthe Limitation Act for condensation of delay in filing
\nI.A. 1197\/2000.\n<\/p>\n
 2. Defendant No.1 expired on 11.2.1999.
\nPlaintiffs claim to have knowledge of the death on
\n23.9.1999 when the counsel for the defendants made a
\nstatement in Court. The plaintiffs filed the
\napplication under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC on 27.1.2000,
\ni.e., after a lapse of more than four months along
\nwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation
\nAct for condensation of delay in filing the application
\nunder Order 22 Rule 4 CPC.\n<\/p>\n
 3. The applicant contends that due to lack of
\ncommunication, the information could not be passed on
\nto the plaintiff and application under Order 22 Rule 4
\nCPC could not be filed. It is also stated that on
\n25.1.2000 when the files were taken out for the next
\nday, i.e., 27.1.2000 this fact came tot he notice of
\nthe counsel for the plaintiff and the application was
\nfiled on 27.1.2000. In any case, plaintiff came to
\nknow about the factum of death of defendant No.1 for
\nthe first time on 25.01.2000.\n<\/p>\n
 4. Smt. Chander Kanta, the proposed legal heir
\nof defendant No.1 has filed her reply contesting the
\napplication for condensation of delay. She has alleged
\nthat defendant No.1 was residing in H-66, South Extn.
\nPart I while plaintiffs No.2 and 3 along with their
\nfamily members were living in H-68, South Extn. Part
\nI. Plaintiff No.3 (ii) who has filed affidavit in
\nsupport of the application has all along been living
\nand residing in the said house No. H-68, South Extn.
\nPart I. Both the houses, i.e., H-66 and H-68 are
\nopposite to each other. Families of plaintiffs No.2
\nand 3 and defendant No.1 were on visiting terms. All
\nthe family members of plaintiffs No.2 and 3 including
\nplaintiff No. 3(ii) were fully aware that defendant
\nNo.1 had died on 11.2.1999. The family members of
\nplaintiffs No.2 and 3 also offered condolences to Smt.
\nChander Kanta on 12.2.1999. The applicants have
\nsuppressed true facts. The statement in the Court on
\n23.9.1999 was made in the presence of counsel for the
\napplicant. It is also alleged that the applicant does
\nnot disclose any cause muchless any sufficient cause
\nfor delay in filing the application under Order 22
\nRules 4 and 5 CPC.\n<\/p>\n
 5. In rejoinder, the plaintiffs have submitted
\nthat the legal heirs of plaintiffs No.2 and 3<\/span>
\nsometimes reside at H-68, South Extn. and sometime at
\nLucknow. It is also contended that during the period
\n26.1.1999 till 1st week of March 1999, Smt. Meena
\nJain and her mother-in-law were in Lucknow.
\nConsequently, there was no occasion for coming to know
\nabout the death of defendant No.1. It has been denied
\nthat the families of plaintiffs No.2 and 3 and
\ndefendant No.1 are on visiting terms after the filing
\nof the present proceedings. All other allegations
\nmade in the reply have been denied.\n<\/p>\n
 6. I have heard learned counsel for the
\nparties.\n<\/p>\n
 7. An application for bringing the legal heirs
\nof a deceased on record is to be made within 90 days
\nfrom the date of death of the deceased or from the
\ndate of knowledge of death of the deceased. In the
\npresent case, the defendant No.1 died on 11.2.1999
\nwhich according to the plaintiffs came to their notice
\non 23.9.1999 when counsel for the defendant made a
\nstatement in the Court. The plaintiffs filed the
\npresent application under Order 22 Rule 4 on
\n27.1.2000, almost after more than four months after
\nthe prescribed period of limitation along with an
\napplication under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for
\ncondensation of delay.\n<\/p>\n
 8. It is settled law that to obtain extension
\nof time by invoking the provisions of Section 5 of he
\nLimitation Act, the party seeking extension has to
\nsatisfy the Court that there is sufficient cause for
\nnot approaching the Court within the prescribed time.
\nSection 5 gives the Court a discretion which is to be
\nexercised upon established principles.\n<\/p>\n
 9. A plethora of decisions lay down that the
\nexpression ‘sufficient cause’ is to be liberally
\nconstrued so as to advance substantial justice when no
\nnegligence or inaction or bonafides is imputable to
\nthe parties. It is adequately elastic to enable the
\nCourt to apply the law in a meaningful manner which
\nsubserves the ends of justice. It does not mean that
\nevery cause pleaded by the party has to be accepted
\nwhere the party is negligent and has slept over its
\nrights for over a year. The Court must not exercise
\ndiscretion in such cases.\n<\/p>\n
 10. In  Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and
\nAnr. v. Mst. Katiji and Ors.<\/a>  ,
\ntheir lordships of the Supreme Court have held that a
\njustice-oriented approach has to be adopted while
\ndealing with an application under Section 5 of the
\nLimitation Act and that “every day’s delay must be
\nexplained” does not mean that technical approach
\nshould be made.\n<\/p>\n
 11. Negligence of the counsel may be accepted by
\nthe Court as a justification in extending time unless
\nthe error of the counsel was tainted by any mala fide
\nmotive though the mistake of counsel cannot be treated
\nas sufficient ground to condone delay by way of a rule
\nof universal application. It is all a question of
\ndetermining the bona fides of the litigant.\n<\/p>\n
 12. Learned counsel for the defendant has placed
\nreliance on a judgment of the Full Bench of Gujarat
\nHigh Court in  Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad.
\nthrough the Municipal Commissioner v. Voltas Limited
\nand etc. etc.  wherein it
\nwas held as under:-\n<\/p>\n
  “The phrase ‘sufficient cause’ as
\noccurring in Section 5 of the Limitation
\nAct pertains to the establishment of the
\nappropriate facts before the Court to
\nwhich the Court can apply its mind and
\narrive at a conclusion regarding the
\nsufficiency of the cause or otherwise. In
\nessence, therefore, the phrase ‘sufficient
\ncause’ is not a question of principle, but
\nis a question of fact. Hence, whether to
\ncondone the delay or not depends upon the
\nfacts and circumstances of each case as
\nsufficient cause’ for condensation of
\ndelay depends only on the facts placed by
\nthe applicants before the Court. The
\nprinciple in law only is that the Courts
\nare required to take a liberal view while
\nconsidering the facts constituting the
\nsufficiency of the cause, on the basis of
\nwhich condensation of delay is sought.
\nThis does not necessarily amount to saying
\nthat all applications for condensation must
\nbe granted. This is necessarily within
\nthe discretionary jurisdiction of the
\nCourt, and the Court deciding the
\napplication for condensation would
\nnecessarily exercise its discretion
\njudicially in the light of the
\nwell-established principles, as regard the
\nappreciation of the relevant facts.”\n<\/p>\n
 13. In  Smt. Tara Wanti v. State of Haryana
\nthrough the Collector, Kurukshetra , it was observed as under:-\n<\/p>\n
  “To attract the provisions of Section 5 of
\nthe Limitation Act a Suitor is under an
\nobligation to show that he had sufficient
\ncause for not preferring the appeal or
\nmaking application within the period of
\nlimitation prescribed under the Act or
\nunder any other statute governing the
\nfiling of the appeals or applications.
\nEven though normally the grounds of
\nsufficient causes have been spelt out by
\nvarious pronouncements of different High
\nCourts and the Apex Court yet no ground
\ncan be held to be generally applicable
\nwithout exception. The question of
\nexistence of sufficient cause is to be
\ndecided on the basis of the facts and
\ncircumstances of each particular case.
\nSufficient cause within the meaning of the
\nSection must be a cause which is beyond
\nthe control of the party invoking the aid
\nof the Section and the test to be applied
\nwould be to see as to whether it was a
\nbona fide cause, inasmuch as nothing could
\nbe considered to be bona fide which is not
\ndone with due care and attention.\n<\/p>\n
Precisely, the meaning of the word
\nsufficient cause and its scope should not
\nbe crystallised by any rigid definition.”\n<\/p>\n
 14. Reliance has also been placed on a judgment
\nof the Supreme Court in  Calcutta Municipal Corporation
\nv. Pawan Kumar Saraf and Anr.<\/a> wherein D.P. Wadhwa, J., while dissenting,
\nheld that:-\n<\/p>\n
  “Liberal all right, but delay is
\ninexcusable unless sufficient cause is
\nshow. it is not the law that when an
\napplication seeking condensation of delay
\nis filed by the State or any authority,
\nthis Court must invariably condone the
\ndelay irrespective whether sufficient
\ncause is shown or not.”\n<\/p>\n
 15. Now coming back to the present, case, the
\nplaintiffs in para 5 of their application have
\nsubmitted as under:-\n<\/p>\n
  “That on 23.9.1999, when the matter was
\nlisted before this Hon’ble Court, the
\nassociate of the counsel for the plaintiff
\nShri Ashwini Sood appeared and during the
\nproceedings he came to know that defendant
\nNo.1 had expired. However, the date of
\ndeath was not disclosed. Though, nothing
\nto this effect was made on the file,
\nhowever, the information could not be
\npassed on to the plaintiff. During this
\nperiod due to lack of communication also,
\nproper application could not be moved and
\ndelay has occurred in the above
\ncircumstances which is bona fide as it is
\nonly on 25.1.2000 when the files were
\ntaken out for the next day, i.e.,
\n27.1.2000 this fact came to the notice of
\nthe counsel for the plaintiff. In any
\ncase, the plaintiff remained altogether
\nignorant about the death of defendant No.1
\nand has virtually come to know about the
\nfactum of death of defendant No.1 for the
\nfirst time on 25.1.2000…”\n<\/p>\n
 16. One thing is clear that the counsel for the
\nplaintiffs came to know about the death of defendant
\nNo.1 on 23.9.1999 when a statement to this effect was
\nmade in Court. Yet no steps were taken. Plaintiffs
\nclaim lack of communication on the part of the
\nassociate counsel who appeared in the matter.
\nHowever, no affidavit of the associate counsel, Mr.
\nAshwini Sood, has been filed to support the above
\ncontention.\n<\/p>\n
 17. It is relevant to note that the plaintiffs
\nhave admitted that they and the defendants are
\nneighbours living in houses which are opposite to each
\nother. The parties were on visiting terms prior to
\nthe institution of the suit. Therefore, it is highly
\nimprobable that the plaintiffs did not have knowledge
\nof the death of defendant No.1.\n<\/p>\n
 18. There is no material on record to show that
\nManish Jain and Meena Jain were residents of Lucknow.
\nThere is also no material placed on record to support
\nthe contention that during the period 26.1.1999 till
\n1st week of March 1999, Smt. Meena Jain and her
\nmother-in-law were in Lucknow. Therefore, this plea
\nof the plaintiffs is also liable to be rejected.
\nMoreover, the affidavits of Smt. Meena Jain and Shri
\nManish Jain in support of various applications mention
\nthe South Extension address, which confirms the fact
\nthat they reside in Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
 19. The mother-in-law of Smt. Meena Jain who
\nhas filed an affidavit in support of the application
\nfor condensation of delay and the mother of plaintiffs
\nNo.2 and 3 along with their daughter had called on
\nSmt. Chander Kanta on 12.2.1999 and offered
\ncondolences on the death of defendant No.1. The
\nplaintiffs have merely denied the same in their
\nrejoinder. I have no reason to disbelieve the
\naverments made in the affidavit in light of the fact
\nthat the parties were living opposite to each other
\nand were on visiting terms.\n<\/p>\n
 20. There was total inaction, gross negligence
\nand lack of bona fides on the part of the applicant
\nfor taking steps for bringing the legal heirs on
\nrecord. The explanation offered is not cogent. A
\nvaluable right has accrued in favor of the legal
\nheirs of defendant No.1. Equities are not in favor
\nof the applicant. A litigant is required to be
\nvigilant. The applicant did not proceed with due
\ndiligence and has failed to disclose sufficient cause
\nto warrant exercise of discretion by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
 21. Having regard to the facts and circumstances
\nof the case and in light of the aforesaid discussion,
\nthe application being I.A. 1198\/2000 under Section 5
\nof the Limitation Act is dismissed. Accordingly, the
\napplication being I.A. 1197\/2000 under Order 22 Rule
\n4 CPC is also dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Aarohi Builders Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. vs Shri Rajeshwar And Ors. on 22 November, 2002 Equivalent citations: 102 (2003) DLT 686, 2003 (67) DRJ 169 Author: C K Mahajan Bench: C Mahajan JUDGMENT C. K. Mahajan, J. 1. These are the applications filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under Order 22 Rules […]<\/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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-228410","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAarohi Builders Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. vs Shri Rajeshwar And Ors. on 22 November, 2002 - 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\/aarohi-builders-pvt-ltd-and-ors-vs-shri-rajeshwar-and-ors-on-22-november-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Aarohi Builders Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. vs Shri Rajeshwar And Ors. on 22 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aarohi-builders-pvt-ltd-and-ors-vs-shri-rajeshwar-and-ors-on-22-november-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-11-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-02T15:02:26+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\\\/aarohi-builders-pvt-ltd-and-ors-vs-shri-rajeshwar-and-ors-on-22-november-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aarohi-builders-pvt-ltd-and-ors-vs-shri-rajeshwar-and-ors-on-22-november-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Aarohi Builders Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. vs Shri Rajeshwar And Ors. on 22 November, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-11-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-02T15:02:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aarohi-builders-pvt-ltd-and-ors-vs-shri-rajeshwar-and-ors-on-22-november-2002\"},\"wordCount\":2041,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aarohi-builders-pvt-ltd-and-ors-vs-shri-rajeshwar-and-ors-on-22-november-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aarohi-builders-pvt-ltd-and-ors-vs-shri-rajeshwar-and-ors-on-22-november-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aarohi-builders-pvt-ltd-and-ors-vs-shri-rajeshwar-and-ors-on-22-november-2002\",\"name\":\"Aarohi Builders Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. vs Shri Rajeshwar And Ors. on 22 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-11-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-02T15:02:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aarohi-builders-pvt-ltd-and-ors-vs-shri-rajeshwar-and-ors-on-22-november-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aarohi-builders-pvt-ltd-and-ors-vs-shri-rajeshwar-and-ors-on-22-november-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aarohi-builders-pvt-ltd-and-ors-vs-shri-rajeshwar-and-ors-on-22-november-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Aarohi Builders Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. vs Shri Rajeshwar And Ors. on 22 November, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Aarohi Builders Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. vs Shri Rajeshwar And Ors. on 22 November, 2002 - 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\/aarohi-builders-pvt-ltd-and-ors-vs-shri-rajeshwar-and-ors-on-22-november-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Aarohi Builders Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. vs Shri Rajeshwar And Ors. on 22 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aarohi-builders-pvt-ltd-and-ors-vs-shri-rajeshwar-and-ors-on-22-november-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-11-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-02T15:02:26+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\/aarohi-builders-pvt-ltd-and-ors-vs-shri-rajeshwar-and-ors-on-22-november-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aarohi-builders-pvt-ltd-and-ors-vs-shri-rajeshwar-and-ors-on-22-november-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Aarohi Builders Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. vs Shri Rajeshwar And Ors. on 22 November, 2002","datePublished":"2002-11-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-02T15:02:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aarohi-builders-pvt-ltd-and-ors-vs-shri-rajeshwar-and-ors-on-22-november-2002"},"wordCount":2041,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aarohi-builders-pvt-ltd-and-ors-vs-shri-rajeshwar-and-ors-on-22-november-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aarohi-builders-pvt-ltd-and-ors-vs-shri-rajeshwar-and-ors-on-22-november-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aarohi-builders-pvt-ltd-and-ors-vs-shri-rajeshwar-and-ors-on-22-november-2002","name":"Aarohi Builders Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. vs Shri Rajeshwar And Ors. on 22 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-11-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-02T15:02:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aarohi-builders-pvt-ltd-and-ors-vs-shri-rajeshwar-and-ors-on-22-november-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aarohi-builders-pvt-ltd-and-ors-vs-shri-rajeshwar-and-ors-on-22-november-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aarohi-builders-pvt-ltd-and-ors-vs-shri-rajeshwar-and-ors-on-22-november-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Aarohi Builders Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. vs Shri Rajeshwar And Ors. on 22 November, 2002"}]},{"@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\/228410","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=228410"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/228410\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=228410"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=228410"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=228410"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}