{"id":232978,"date":"2009-05-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-05-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hajari-ram-joshi-vs-state-ors-on-25-may-2009"},"modified":"2017-01-06T06:38:37","modified_gmt":"2017-01-06T01:08:37","slug":"hajari-ram-joshi-vs-state-ors-on-25-may-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hajari-ram-joshi-vs-state-ors-on-25-may-2009","title":{"rendered":"Hajari Ram Joshi vs State & Ors on 25 May, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur<\/div>\n
Hajari Ram Joshi vs State & Ors on 25 May, 2009<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/pre>\n
                                 1<\/span><\/p>\n
           S.B.CIVIL FIRST APPEAL NO.1\/2002
\n     (Hajari Ram Joshi Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors.)<\/p>\n
Date of Order ::           25th May 2009<\/p>\n
      HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI<\/p>\n
Mr.A.K.Singh for the applicant
\nMr.Sanwal Ram Choudhary for the respondent No.1
\nMr.S.K.Maheshwari for Mr.Sunil Mehta for the respondent
\nNo.3.\n<\/p>\n
                               ….\n<\/p>\n
\n      Learned counsel for the parties have been heard on the<\/p>\n
application dated 27.11.2007 as moved in this case for<\/p>\n
substitution of the applicant as appellant.<\/p>\n
      This appeal has been preferred against the order dated<\/p>\n
04.12.2001 as passed by the Additional District Judge No.1,<\/p>\n
Bikaner in Civil Misc. Case No.179A\/1998 that was dealt with<\/p>\n
by the learned Additional District Judge on an application<\/p>\n
moved by the Assistant Commissioner Devasthan, Bikaner<\/p>\n
under Section 38 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959<\/p>\n
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’\/’the Act of 1959’) in relation<\/p>\n
to a Public Trust registered in the name of ‘Shri Bhajan Giri<\/p>\n
Sewa Samiti Trust, Gangashahar Road, Bikaner’ with Hajari<\/p>\n
Ram (the appellant), Mohanlal, and Shanti Giri having been<\/p>\n
appointed as the trustees.\n<\/p>\n
      There had been a complaint made by one Lalji Maharaj<\/p>\n
Sewa Samiti, Bikaner in relation to the aforesaid trustees and<\/p>\n
it was alleged that the trust property was not being properly
\n                                  2<\/span><\/p>\n
managed    and    administered       whereupon   the   Devasthan<\/p>\n
Department carried out the necessary enquiry and directed the<\/p>\n
said complainant to take up the proceedings per Section 38<\/p>\n
(1) of the Act of 1959. However, for the said complainant<\/p>\n
failing to take up the requisite proceedings, the Assistant<\/p>\n
Commissioner Devasthan, Bikaner moved the application<\/p>\n
under Section 38 (2) of the Act of 1959 seeking necessary<\/p>\n
directions and orders of the Court per Section 40 of the Act.<\/p>\n
The non-applicants No.1 Hajari Ram (the appellant) and the<\/p>\n
non-applicant No.2 Mohanlal denied the allegations and raised<\/p>\n
objections against competence of the application so moved by<\/p>\n
the Assistant Commissioner.\n<\/p>\n
      The learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Bikaner,<\/p>\n
after framing necessary issues and taking the evidence led by<\/p>\n
the parties held the application competent and further held that<\/p>\n
all the three trustees had been mismanaging the affairs of the<\/p>\n
Trust, had also transferred the trust property, and permitted<\/p>\n
the same being taken over in possession by other persons<\/p>\n
unauthorisedly. Finding the allegations of irregularities and<\/p>\n
misuse of the trust property proved and the trustees having<\/p>\n
functioned against the interests of the Trust, the learned<\/p>\n
Additional District Judge, by the impugned order dated<\/p>\n
04.12.2001, ordered removal of the said three trustees and<\/p>\n
appointed the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Bikaner as
\n                                3<\/span><\/p>\n
the receiver to manage the trust property and then to have the<\/p>\n
new trustees appointed in accordance with the constitution of<\/p>\n
the Trust; and also issued the ancillary directions for<\/p>\n
maintaining of the accounts by the receiver.<\/p>\n
      The order so passed by the Court on 04.12.2001 being<\/p>\n
an appealable one per sub-section (3) of Section 40 of the Act<\/p>\n
of 1959, the non-applicant trustee Hajari Ram proceeded to<\/p>\n
challenge the same by way of this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
       This appeal was initially filed as a civil miscellaneous<\/p>\n
appeal but then, an application was moved on behalf of the<\/p>\n
appellant for treating it as a regular first appeal under Section<\/p>\n
96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (‘CPC’) read with Section 40<\/p>\n
(3) of the Act of 1959. On 20.12.2001, this Court allowed the<\/p>\n
said application while keeping the rights of the respondents<\/p>\n
reserved for raising objections. It is made clear that in view of<\/p>\n
the limited issue regarding substitution of the applicant in<\/p>\n
place of the deceased appellant being addressed to in this<\/p>\n
order, the question of competence of the present one as a<\/p>\n
regular first appeal is kept open to be dealt with at the<\/p>\n
appropriate stage.\n<\/p>\n
      In this appeal, show cause notices were issued and<\/p>\n
thereafter, the appeal was admitted for consideration on<\/p>\n
05.04.2007 and was ordered to be placed for hearing in due<\/p>\n
course. The present application came to be moved on
\n                                4<\/span><\/p>\n
27.11.2007 by the applicant Dev Kishan with the submissions<\/p>\n
that he is son of the appellant Hajari Ram who had expired on<\/p>\n
08.06.2007.     The applicant would assert that he had been<\/p>\n
engaged in Sewa Puja with the appellant during his life time<\/p>\n
and is continuing to do so after his demise. The applicant<\/p>\n
would further assert that he has been appointed as life time<\/p>\n
member of the trust in place of his father and has also been<\/p>\n
appointed as Pujari by the Mahant and the Chairman of the<\/p>\n
Trust on 02.08.2007. It has been prayed with reference to<\/p>\n
Order XXII Rule 3 CPC that the applicant may be ‘treated’ as<\/p>\n
appellant in this appeal. Learned counsel for the applicant has<\/p>\n
referred to and relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Supreme Court in the case of Rikhu Dev, Chela Bawa Harjug<\/p>\n
Dass Vs. Som Das (Deceased) through his Chela Shiama<\/p>\n
Dass: AIR 1975 SC 2159 and that of this Court in the case of<\/p>\n
Suraj Mal and others Vs. Khumani Lal and others: 2002 (4)<\/p>\n
WLC (Raj.) 755.\n<\/p>\n
        During the course of submissions on this application,<\/p>\n
the learned counsel for the applicant placed on record an<\/p>\n
order   dated    19.05.2008   as   passed   by   the    Assistant<\/p>\n
Commissioner, Devasthan, Bikaner in Case No.1\/2008<\/p>\n
whereby the name of the applicant Dev Kishan was permitted<\/p>\n
to be substituted as the trustee of the said Trust.    Looking to<\/p>\n
the contents and frame of the application as moved and the
\n                                 5<\/span><\/p>\n
contents of the order dated 19.05.2008, the Assistant<\/p>\n
Commissioner, Devasthan was required to clarify the present<\/p>\n
status of the said Trust; and the learned counsel appearing for<\/p>\n
the Devasthan Department, after taking instructions, has made<\/p>\n
submissions that the applicant Dev Kishan has been<\/p>\n
appointed as a trustee and he continues as such; and that the<\/p>\n
Trust is in management of the trust property.<\/p>\n
      Though the application dated 27.11.2007 has been<\/p>\n
moved with reference to the provisions of Order XXII Rule 3<\/p>\n
CPC and looking to the subject matter of the appeal, it is<\/p>\n
difficult to accede to the submission that the applicant could<\/p>\n
be substituted as a legal representative of the deceased but<\/p>\n
then, for the observations as made by the Hon’ble Supreme<\/p>\n
Court in Rikhu Dev’s case (supra) and further looking to the<\/p>\n
findings as recorded in the order dated 04.12.2001 coupled<\/p>\n
with the fact that the applicant is said to have been appointed<\/p>\n
and recognised as a trustee of the Trust,         it does appear<\/p>\n
appropriate, per the principles of Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, that<\/p>\n
he be substituted as appellant in place of the deceased<\/p>\n
appellant to continue with this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
      In the case of Rikhu Dev (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme<\/p>\n
Court has pointed out the operation of the provisions of Order<\/p>\n
XXII Rule 10 CPC thus:\n<\/p>\n
      “8. This rule is based on the principle that trial of a
\n      suit cannot be brought to an end merely because
\n                                    6<\/span><\/p>\n
         the interest of a party in the subject matter of the
\n         suit has devolved upon another during the
\n         pendency of the suit but that suit may be
\n         continued against the person acquiring the
\n         interest with the leave of the Court. When a suit is
\n         brought by or against a person in a representative
\n         capacity and there is a devolution of the interest of
\n         the representative, the rule that has to be applied
\n         is Order 22, Rule 10 and not Rule 3 or 4, whether
\n         the devolution takes place as a consequence of
\n         death or for any other reason. Order 22, Rule 10,
\n         is not confined to devolution of interest of a party
\n         by death; it also applies if the head of the mutt or
\n         manager of the temple resigns his office or is
\n         removed from office. In such a case the successor
\n         to the head of the mutt or to the manager of the
\n         temple may be substituted as a party under this
\n         rule. The word ‘interest’ which is mentioned in this
\n         rule means interest in the property i.e., the subject
\n         matter of the suit and the interest is the interest of
\n         the person who was the party to the suit.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed, inter alia,<\/p>\n
that,-\n<\/p>\n
         ”10…….In Thirumalai v. Arunachella, AIR 1926
\n         Mad 540 the Court held that a succeeding
\n         trustee of a trustee who filed a suit and thereafter
\n         died during its pendency was not legal
\n         representative of the predecessor in office. The
\n         Court said that where some of the trustees die or
\n         retire during the pendency of a suit and new
\n         persons are elected to fill their place, it is a case
\n         of devolution of interest during the pendency of a
\n         suit and the elected persons can be added as
\n         parties under Order 22 Rule 10 notwithstanding
\n         that the period of limitation for impleading them
\n         had expired.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         11. In Roshan Lal v. Kapur Chand, AIR 1960
\n         Punj 382 the Court took the view that newly
\n         appointed trustees are not legal representatives
\n         of the trustees who had filed the suit and
\n         thereafter died during the pendency of the suit,
\n         that they can be added as parties under Order
\n                                     7<\/span><\/p>\n
           22, Rule 10 notwithstanding the fact that the
\n           period of limitation for an application to implead
\n           them under Order 22, Rule 3 had elapsed. The
\n           Court said (at p. 384):\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 ”Such an application is obviously not an
\n           application under Order 22, Rule 3, Civil
\n           Procedure Code.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           12. We also see no reason why the High Court
\n           should not have granted leave to the appellant to
\n           prosecute the appeal.”<\/p>\n
           In view of the observations above and looking to the<\/p>\n
     subject matter of this appeal and the status of the applicant, it<\/p>\n
     appears appropriate to permit him to continue with this appeal<\/p>\n
     as appellant under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           The application dated 27.11.2007 is, accordingly,<\/p>\n
     allowed subject to the observations above; the applicant is<\/p>\n
     permitted to continue with this appeal; and, for that purpose,<\/p>\n
     is ordered to be substituted as appellant in place of the<\/p>\n
     deceased appellant.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           Amended cause-title already filed is taken on record and<\/p>\n
     be placed appropriately.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           Office to proceed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                        (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
MK\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur Hajari Ram Joshi vs State & Ors on 25 May, 2009 1 S.B.CIVIL FIRST APPEAL NO.1\/2002 (Hajari Ram Joshi Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors.) Date of Order :: 25th May 2009 HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.A.K.Singh for the applicant Mr.Sanwal Ram Choudhary for the respondent No.1 Mr.S.K.Maheshwari for Mr.Sunil […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-232978","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"\nHajari Ram Joshi vs State & Ors on 25 May, 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\/hajari-ram-joshi-vs-state-ors-on-25-may-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hajari Ram Joshi vs State & Ors on 25 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hajari-ram-joshi-vs-state-ors-on-25-may-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=\"2009-05-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-06T01:08:37+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\\\/hajari-ram-joshi-vs-state-ors-on-25-may-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hajari-ram-joshi-vs-state-ors-on-25-may-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hajari Ram Joshi vs State & Ors on 25 May, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-06T01:08:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hajari-ram-joshi-vs-state-ors-on-25-may-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1630,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hajari-ram-joshi-vs-state-ors-on-25-may-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hajari-ram-joshi-vs-state-ors-on-25-may-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hajari-ram-joshi-vs-state-ors-on-25-may-2009\",\"name\":\"Hajari Ram Joshi vs State & Ors on 25 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-06T01:08:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hajari-ram-joshi-vs-state-ors-on-25-may-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hajari-ram-joshi-vs-state-ors-on-25-may-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hajari-ram-joshi-vs-state-ors-on-25-may-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hajari Ram Joshi vs State & Ors on 25 May, 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":"Hajari Ram Joshi vs State & Ors on 25 May, 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\/hajari-ram-joshi-vs-state-ors-on-25-may-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hajari Ram Joshi vs State & Ors on 25 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hajari-ram-joshi-vs-state-ors-on-25-may-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-05-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-06T01:08:37+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\/hajari-ram-joshi-vs-state-ors-on-25-may-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hajari-ram-joshi-vs-state-ors-on-25-may-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hajari Ram Joshi vs State & Ors on 25 May, 2009","datePublished":"2009-05-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-06T01:08:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hajari-ram-joshi-vs-state-ors-on-25-may-2009"},"wordCount":1630,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hajari-ram-joshi-vs-state-ors-on-25-may-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hajari-ram-joshi-vs-state-ors-on-25-may-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hajari-ram-joshi-vs-state-ors-on-25-may-2009","name":"Hajari Ram Joshi vs State & Ors on 25 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-05-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-06T01:08:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hajari-ram-joshi-vs-state-ors-on-25-may-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hajari-ram-joshi-vs-state-ors-on-25-may-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hajari-ram-joshi-vs-state-ors-on-25-may-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hajari Ram Joshi vs State & Ors on 25 May, 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\/232978","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=232978"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/232978\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=232978"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=232978"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=232978"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}