{"id":23418,"date":"1997-01-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1997-01-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahendra-singh-jaggi-etc-vs-dataram-jagannath-on-15-january-1997"},"modified":"2015-10-25T18:33:07","modified_gmt":"2015-10-25T13:03:07","slug":"mahendra-singh-jaggi-etc-vs-dataram-jagannath-on-15-january-1997","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahendra-singh-jaggi-etc-vs-dataram-jagannath-on-15-january-1997","title":{"rendered":"Mahendra Singh Jaggi Etc vs Dataram Jagannath on 15 January, 1997"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Mahendra Singh Jaggi Etc vs Dataram Jagannath on 15 January, 1997<\/div>\n
Author: S Majmudar.<\/div>\n
Bench: A.S. Anand, S.B. Majmudar<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMAHENDRA SINGH JAGGI ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nDATARAM JAGANNATH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t15\/01\/1997\n\nBENCH:\nA.S. ANAND, S.B. MAJMUDAR\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
(WITH VICE VERSA)
\n\t       THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1997
\nPresent:\n<\/p>\n
\t       Hon’ble Mr.Justice A.S. Anand
\n\t       Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.B. Majmudar
\nIn-person and  Ranjit Kumar,  Adv.  for\t the  appellants  in
\nC.A.No. 156 and 158\/97
\n\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\n     The following judgment of the Court was delivered:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    WITH
\n(C.A. No. 157 of 1997 (arising out of S.L.P (C) No. 12429 of
\n1990): and  C.A. No.  158 of 1997 (arising out of S.L.P. (C)
\nNo. 6392 of 1995]
\n\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nS.B. Majmudar. J.\n<\/p>\n
     Leave granted in all these special leave petitions.
\n     By consent\t of parties  the appeal\t arising from  these
\nspecial leave  petitions were  heard finally  and are  being
\ndisposed of  by this judgment as common questions are raised
\nfor our consideration in these appeals.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant  in appeals arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.
\n10981 of  1987 and  S.L.P. (C)\tNo. 6392 of 1995 is Mahendra
\nSingh Jaggi,  party-in-person who  was also  permitted to be
\nassisted by  advocate Shri  Ranjit Kumar who was good enough
\nto appear  amicus curise  for him at out request, we express
\nout deep  sense of  appreciation for the service rendered by
\nShri Ranjit  Kumar at  out instance.  We will  refer to\t the
\nappellant  in\tthese  tow  appeals  as\t defendant  and\t the
\ncontesting respondent  as the  plaintiff. In  appeal arising
\nout of\tS.L.P. (C)  No. 12429  of 1990\tthe plaintiff is the
\nappellant while the defendant is the contesting respondent.\n<\/p>\n
     Disputes between  the plaintiff and the defendant which
\nhave culminated\t in the\t present proceedings  before us\t are
\nspread over  years and represent a chequered history. At the
\noutset we  may\tbriefly\t indicated  the\t   background  facts
\nleading to the present proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
     The plaintiff  filed a  civil suit in 1961 in the Court
\nof First  Additional Subordinate  Judge, Guttack against the
\ndefendant for  realisation of Rs. 10723.63 (Principal amount
\nof Rs.\t9385.09 plus interest Rs. 1938.54 10% p.a.) on khata
\naccount. According  to the  plaintiff he was a financier and
\nhad advanced  moneys from  time to time to the defendant for
\nenabling him  to carry\ton his\tmotor spare  part  business,
\nAccording to  the plaintiff  the suit amount was failing due
\nat the\tfoot of\t account. In the suit the defendant raised a
\ncounter-claim in  his additional  written statement claiming
\ncertain amounts\t after taking accounts from the plaintiff in
\nrespect of goods which came into his possession in pursuance
\nof a agreement. The Trial Court decreed the plaintiff’s suit
\nagainst the  defendant but  also accepted the cross-claim of
\nthe defendant  for accounts  and passed a preliminary decree
\nfor accounts  to be  rendered by the plaintiff for the goods
\nlying in  his custody.\tThe Trial  Court observed  that\t the
\ndetails of  the decree\twould be  worked out  in  the  final
\ndecree. The plaintiff carried the matter in appeal so far as
\npreliminary decree  for accounts  was  concerned.  Defendant
\nalso appealed  against the  money decree passed in favour of
\nthe plaintiff.\tDefendant’s appeal was dismissed by the High
\nCourt. Defendant  did not challenge that appellate order any
\nfurther. Thus  money decree  passed  against  the  defendant
\nbecame\tfinal\tbut  the   plaintiff’s\tappeal\tagainst\t the
\npreliminary decree  for accounts  as passed  against him  in
\nfavour of  the defendant  was allowed  by the High Court. It
\nset aside  that part of the judgment and decree of the Trial
\nCourt which  directed the  plaintiff to\t tender accounts and
\ndismissed the  cross-claim made\t by  the  defendant  in\t his
\nadditional  written   statement.  The\tdefendant,  who\t was
\nrespondent in  plaintiff’s appeal,  carried  the  matter  in
\nfurther appeal\tbefore this  Court. A  three member Bench of
\nthis Court  speaking through  S.M. Sikri,  C.J. allowed\t the
\nappeal of  the defendant and restored the preliminary decree
\nof accounts  as passed\tin his favour by the Trial Court and
\ndirected the  Trial Court  to proceed  further\tfor  passing
\nfinal decree  in accordance with law. The aforesaid decision
\nof this\t Court is  reported as\tMahinder Singh Jaggi v. Data
\nRam Jagannath  AIR<\/a> 1072 Sc 1049. Pursuant to the preliminary
\ndecree for accounts as passed in favour of the defendant and
\nagainst\t the  plaintiff\t by  this  Court  the  final  decree
\nproceeding the\taccounts as  appointed by  the\tTrial  Court
\nsubmitted his  Report which  was not  acceptable to both the
\nsides. After  considering their\t objections  to\t the  Report
\nultimately  the\t Trial\tCourt  passed  a  final\t decree\t for
\naccounts in  favour of\tthe defendant  awarding Rs.  5,268\/-
\nwith  profit   at  10%\t as  recommended  by  the  aforesaid
\nCommissioner, The defendant challenged the said final decree
\nbefore the  High Court\tin First  Appeal No. 17 of 1077. The
\ntotal claim  put forward by the defendant in the said appeal
\nconsisted of four items totalling to Rs. 47,478.86 as under:\n<\/p>\n
     (a) Value of the goods in the custody of the plaintiffs
\n15,589.86.\n<\/p>\n
(b)  Value of the goods released by the bank and received by
\n     the plaintiffs on 13.8.1957   16,759.00\n<\/p>\n
(c)  increase  in  the\trate  of  goods\t to  the  extent  of
\n     10,130.00\n<\/p>\n
(d)  Profit on the goods retained by the plaintiffs 5,000.00
\n\t\t\t\t   Total\t   47,478.86
\n     The learned  Single Judge\tof the\tHigh  Court  by\t his
\njudgment and  order dated  25th February  1987\tallowed\t the
\nappeal and  held that  the  defendant  is  entitled  to\t Rs.
\n10,750\/- from  the plaintiff.  He was  also held entitled to
\npendente lite  interest @  8% per  annum  on  the  aforesaid
\namount and  future interest  from the  date of\tthe order at
\ncommercial rate\t of interest  at 10% per annum till the date
\nof recovery  since the\tentire transaction  was\t outcome  of
\nbusiness transaction.  The defendant moved a Review Petition
\nNo. 7  of 1987\twhich was  dismissed on\t 7th July  1097. The
\naforesaid decision  rendered by\t the learned single judge in
\nFirst appeal  no. 17 of 1977 is the subject-matter of appeal
\narising out of S.L.P (C) No. 10981 of 1987.\n<\/p>\n
     The plaintiff on the other hand filed and appeal before
\nthe Division  Bench of\tthe High  Court being A.H.O. No.8 of
\n1987 against  the order rendered by the learned Single Judge
\nin First  Appeal no. 17 of 1977 insofar as the learned judge
\nhad enhanced  the decretal  amount payable to the defendant.
\nThe defendant on his part filed cross-objections in the said
\nA.H.O. No.  8 of 1997 pending before the Division Bench. The
\nDivision Bench\tallowed the said A.H.O. partly to the extent
\nthat increase  in price granted by the learned\tSingle Judge
\nof Rs.\t5,000\/- was  set  aside\t and  the  further  rate  of
\ninterest granted  to the  defendant was scaled down form 18%
\nto   12%. So  far  as  the  cross-objections  filed  by\t the
\ndefendant  were\t  concerned  the   Divisions  filed  by\t the
\ndefendant were\tconcerned the Division Bench did not go into
\nthe cross-objections  in view  of the  pendency\t of  Special
\nLeave Petition\t(C) No. 10981 of 1987 before this Court. The
\ndefendant thereafter preferred a review petition against the
\norder of  the Division\tBench of  the High  Court dated 18th
\nAugust 1993.  The Division Bench by order dated 20th October
\n1994 dismissed the review petition on account of pendency of
\nthe Special Leave Petition before this Court. The Judgements
\nrendered by  the Division  Bench dated\t10th August 1990 and
\n20th October  1994 are brought in challenge by the defendant
\nin Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 6302 of 1995.\n<\/p>\n
     The defendant  in the  meantime sought  to execute\t the
\nfinal money  decree as\tpassed in  his\tfavour\tagainst\t the
\nplaintiff  by\tfilling\t execution  proceedings\t before\t the
\nExecuting Court. The Plaintiff by an application under Order
\n21 Rule\t 19 Code  of Civil  Procedure (CPC)  sought  to\t get
\nadjusted against  the defendant’s  detrital  claim  his\t own
\ndecretal amount\t in the\t suit. The  Executing Court rejected
\nthe said  application as  not  maintainable.  The  plaintiff
\ncarried the  matter in revision being Civil Revision No. 299
\nof 1000\t before the  High Court. The High Court rejected the
\nsaid Revision  Application on  9th July\t 1990. This order of
\nthe High  Court is  made the subject-matter of appeal by the
\nplaintiff in  Civil Appeal  arising out\t of S.L.P.  (C)\t No.
\n12429 of 1990.\n<\/p>\n
     We have  heard the\t learned advocate  for the plaintiff
\nand learned  advocate Sri  Ranjit Kumar\t for  the  party-in-
\nperson as  well as  the party-in-person\t in these appeals in
\nsupport of their respective contentions. The following point
\nfall for our determination.\n<\/p>\n
1.   What is  the appropriate amount which should be granted
\n     to the  defendant in  the\tfinal  decree  for  accounts
\n     against the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
2.   Whether  the   plaintiff  in  entitled  to\t adjust\t his
\n     decretal dues  against the\t defendant’s decretal amount
\n     as found  due and\tpayable\t to  the  defendant  by\t the
\n     plaintiff as  per the  provisions of Order XXI Rule 19,
\n     CPC.\n<\/p>\n
     As directed  by  our  order  dated\t 2nd  December\t1996
\nparties were  permitted to  file written  submissions within
\ntow weeks, Shri Ranjit Kumar, Learned counsel for the party-
\nin-person appellant-defendant has filed written submission.\n<\/p>\n
     As noted earlier the defendant-appellant olaimed in all
\nRs. 47,479.99  from the\t plaintiff on  four items (a) to (d)
\nlisted in  paragraph 8\tof the\timpugned judgment. The first
\nitem refers  to Rs. 19,590,90 pertaining to the value of the
\ngoods in  the oustoday\tof the plaintiff. The learned Single
\nJudge has  held the  said amount  to have been proved by the
\ndefendant, It  is fount\t well established on record that the
\nplaintiff had  received goods  of the  value of Rs. 97142.22
\nand they  were kept  in pledge by the plaintiff. These goods
\nadmittedly belonged  to the  defendant. The  learned  single
\njudge has  also fund  that out\tof the\tsaid value of goods,
\ngoods of  the Value  of Rs.  11552,97 were  already received
\nback by the defendant. Thus the goods of the defendant worth
\nthe net\t value\tof  the\t Rs.  15,589.95\t remained  with\t the
\nplaintiff. In  paragraph 10  of the  judgment it has been in
\nterms held  by the learned judge accepting the Report of the
\ncommissioner that  he plaintiff\t received the  goods as\t per
\nExts, W\/9  to W\/20 from the defendant towards pledge. Having
\nso held the learned Judge has refused to pass decree against
\nthe plaintiff  for the\taforesaid value\t of the\t goods which
\nremained with  the plaintiff by observing that the defendant
\nhad not\t adduced any evidence as whether the goods worth Rs.
\n11,552.97 were\tout of\tthe goods  received by\tplaintiff on
\n13th August  1957. This\t amount is  to be  deducted out\t the
\nadmitted case  the defendant  was not  paying any amount for
\nrelease of  the goods.\tThe plaintiff had paid the amount of
\nRs. 15,589.86.\tHaving so  observed the\t learned  Judge\t has
\nthough it  fit not  to award  any amount to the defendant on
\nthis item. It is difficult for us to defendant on this team.
\nIt is  difficult for us to appreciate how the value of these
\ngoods which remained with the plaintiff though they belonged
\nto the\tdefendant could\t not have  been accounted for by the
\nplaintiff. It  has to  account in  view that the plaintiff’s
\nsuit on\t the foot  of account in already decreed against the
\ndefendant and  that decree  had become final. Therefore, the
\nplaintiff had  nothing ore  to claim  against the  defendant
\ntowards his dues pertaining to the transaction of advance of
\nmoney by the plaintiff to the defendant. Once that aspect is
\nkept in\t view it  becomes obvious that in the cross-claim of
\nthe defendant  which was  to be\t adjudicated upon  on taking
\naccounts as  directed by  this Court in Mohinder Singh Jaggi
\n(supra) the  value of  the goods of the defendant which were
\nnot returned  to him  by the  plaintiff had to be awarded to
\nthe plaintiff.\tWe therefore,  set aside  that part  of\t the
\norder of  the learned  Single Judge  by which  he refused to
\ngrant decree  or Rs.  100,000.00 to  the defendant  on claim
\nitem (a) and decree his amount in favour of the defendant,
\n     So far  as claim  item (b)\t is concerned it pertains to
\nRs. 19,750\/-, So far as this amount is concerned the learned
\nJudge in  paragraph 8  of the judgment has in terms observed
\nthat on\t 19th August  1997, the plaintiff received the goods
\nworth Rs. 19,750\/- and kept the same pledged with him. It is
\nnot in dispute between the parties that these goods belonged
\nto the\tdefendant,  However  the  learned  Single  Judge  in
\nimpugned judgment  was pleased\tnot to grant the full amount
\nof Rs.\t10,750\/- to  the plaintiff  on item  (b) but granted
\nonly Rs.  9,750\/- by deduoting Rs. 10,000\/- by way of amount
\nof money  paid by  the plaintiff  to the  bank for releasing
\nthese goods  from the  bank on\tbehalf of the  defendant. So
\nfar as\tthis deduction\tof Rs.\t10.000\/- is concerned it was
\nnot is\tdispute that it was advanced by the plaintiff to the
\ndefendant by way of paying it on his behalf to the bank. But
\nhis amount was already taken not of by the Trial Court while
\npassing decree\tin  favour  of\tthe  plaintiff\tagainst\t the
\ndefendant on  foot of  account as noted earlier. That decree
\nhas become  final. since  the amount  of  Rs.  10,000\/-\t was
\nalready part  and parcel  of the  decree passed in favour of
\nthe plaintiff  against the defendant the said amount payable
\nto the\tdefendant in  connection with the value of the goods
\nreleased by  the bank  and received by the plaintiff on 10th
\nAugust 1997  as indicated  in claim  them (b).\tIt had to be
\nkept in\t view that  the evidence  on record  showed that Rs.
\n10,000\/- was  the first\t advance paid  to the  bank on\t19th
\nAugust 1997  by the  plaintiff and  this amount\t along\twith
\nother claim  of the  plaintiff was  decreed in\ttotal by the
\nTrial Court. The plaintiff’s claim on this basis as found in
\npara 7\tof the\tplaint\tand  as\t reiterated  in\t plaintiff’s
\nevidence clearly  established\tthis fact. The learned Trial
\nJudge in this connection had noted in his judgment  that the
\ndefendant’s  own   stand  was\tsufficient  to\t accept\t the
\ncorrectness of\tthe plaintiff’s\t account both  on credit and
\ndebit side. In this connection Trial Court had noted further
\nas under :\n<\/p>\n
     “The   defendant\t has\tcogently
\n     explained\tthat  out  of  such  sum
\n     payable to\t the bank the plaintiffs
\n     financed  to   the\t extent\t of  Rs.
\n     10,000\/- and the balanced he repaid
\n     in cash  vide the pass books of the
\n     defendant. EXT.  B and B\/1 the pass
\n     books  of\tthe  defendant\tdisclose
\n     that  thereafter  the  cash  credit
\n     system  of\t  the  defendant  mainly
\n     continued by  the finance\tfrom the
\n     plaintiffs\t till\t11th  September,
\n     1057 when\tthis  cash  credit  pass
\n     book was  closed from  Bank and  on
\n     that very day this defendant opened
\n     the   current   account   book   by
\n     supplementing  of\tfunds  from  the
\n     plaintiffs\t   which    have    been
\n     mentioned,\t as   the  money  passed
\n     always through  the bank.\tThere is
\n     no\t counter  evidence  to\tdisclose
\n     that the  cash credit system of the
\n     defendant any  longer continued and
\n     therefore the  defendant  continued
\n     as\t before\t  but\tthe   bank   was
\n     substituted by  the  plaintiffs  as
\n     financial\t  concern     and    the
\n     circumstances    are    such    the
\n     plaintiffs could  never have parted
\n     with  so  much  money  without  the
\n     pledge of goods as the Bank did.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     On the basis of the aforesaid finding the learned Trial
\nJudge had  decreed the plaintiff’s suit on contest with post
\nagainst the  defendant with  interest of 8%. Thus the amount
\nof Rs.\t10,000\/- paid  by the  plaintiff  to  the  bank\t for
\nreleasing the  defendant’s goods  which were earlier pledged
\nwith the  bank was  already taken  care of  and was made the
\nsubject-matter of  an item  resulting in the money decree in
\nfavour\tof   the  plaintiff   and  against   the  defendant.
\nThereafter  at\t the  stage  of\t taking\t accounts  regarding
\ndefendant’s goods  lying with  the plaintiff  value of which
\nwas to\tbe decreed  in favour  of the  defendant as  per his
\ncross-claim, there  remained no\t oppasion for  the court  to
\nagain deduct  Rs. 10,000\/- from the value of the goods which
\nwas to be made good by the plaintiff to the defendant as per
\nclaim item (b) otherwise it would amount to double deduction
\nin favour  of the  plaintiff. We,  Therefore, find  that the
\nlearned Single\tJudge in the impugned judgment had committed
\nan ed  facie error in once again deducting Rs. 10,000\/- from
\nthe value  of the  goods received  by the  plaintiff on 19th
\nAugust 1957  totalling to  Rs. 18,750\/-. In short instead of
\nRs, 8,750\/- the entire claim of Rs. 18,750\/- was required to
\nbe decreed in favour of the defendant as per claim item (b).
\nwe accordingly do so.\n<\/p>\n
     So far  the claim\titem (d) is concerned in our view on
\nfault can be found with the reasoning edopted by the learned
\nSingle Judge  of the  High Court that some guess work had to
\nbe done\t about the  profit which  might have  accrued to the
\ndefendant on  this claim  as price  was gradually rising and
\nthere was  no  evidence\t that  the  price  of  the  articles
\nremained statio or the articles lost their commercial value,
\nIn absence  of any clear-out evidence on this aspect instead
\nof remanding  the matter and prolonging the agony of parties
\nguess work  of Rs.  5,000\/- was\t made by  the learned Single
\nJudge and  Rs. 5,000\/-\twere awarded towards increase in the
\nrate of\t goods kept  by the plaintiff. consequently on claim
\nitem (8) the appellant had made out no case for any increase
\nabove Rs. 5,000\/- as awarded by the learned Single Judge. On
\nthe other  hand the  Division Bench  of the  High  Court  in
\nA.H.O. No. 8\/97 was not justified in rejecting this claim in
\nthe impugned  judgment in  appeal arising  out of S.L.P. (C)
\nNo. 6392. The Division Bench had observed that they were not
\nfully satisfied\t about grant  of this  amount. If that is so
\nthe matter  ought to  have been\t remanded instead  of  being
\nrejected outright,  In our  view, however,  an amount of Rs.
\n5,000\/- as  awarded on this item by the learned Single Judge
\nremained well justified on the record of the case and called
\nfor no interference by the Division Bench.\n<\/p>\n
     So far  as claim  item (d)\t is concerned it pertains to
\nprofit on  the goods retained by the plaintiffs. Rs. 5,000\/-
\nare already  awarded in\t full by  the learned  single judge.
\nThat appears  to be  well justified  on the  record and\t the
\nDivision Bench\tin A.H.O.  no. 8  of 1997 has also ponfirmed
\nthe said  finding of the learned Single Judge. Therefore, on
\nthis them  nothing further  is required\t to be\tstated. As a
\nresult of  the aforesaid  disoussion the appellant-defendant
\nin addition  to the  final decree of Rs. 16,750\/- as awarded
\nby  the\t  learned  Single  Judge  will\tbe  entitled  to  an
\nadditional amount as under :\n<\/p>\n
     Claim Item (a)  15,589.86
\n     Claim Item (b)  10,000.00\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t     ———\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Total\t     25,589.86\n\t\t    ==========\n<\/pre>\n
     To this  amount to\t be  added Rs. 16,750\/- which amount
\nwas already granted by the learned Single Judge and which is
\nupheld by  us. thus total amount payable by plaintiff to the
\ndefendant as  per  the\tfinal  decree  will  amount  to\t Rs.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
42,348.88. The\tdefendant will\talso  entitled\tto  pendents
\nlight interest\t@ 8%  per annum\t on the\t total amount of Rs.
\n40,348.88 upto\tthe date of the decree of the learned Single
\nJudge and  future interest  thereon from  the decree  of the
\nlearned Single\tJudge dated  20th February  1007 @  12%\t per
\nannum till  realisation of the entire decratal amount by the
\ndefendant from\tthe plaintiff. We are inolined to reduce the
\nfuture interest\t from 25th  February 1987  as awarded by the
\nlearned Single\tJudge from  10% to  12%\t agreeing  with\t the
\nreasoning adopted  by the  Division Bench  of the High Court
\nCourt in  A.H.O. of  1997 as  the relationship\tbetween\t the
\nplaintiff and  the defendant  was not merely of a lender and
\nborrower, but  there was  an agreement\tsimilar to  the cash
\ncredit arrangement  with the  bank and\tas the\tbank rate of
\ninterest at  the relevant  time was  12% Consequently  Civil
\nAppeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 10001 of 1997 and Civil
\nAppeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 6392 of 1995 will stand
\npartly allowed\tas aforesaid and in the place and instead of
\nthe final  decree passed  by the  learned  Single  in  First
\nAppeal No.  47 of 1077 and modified by the Division Bench of
\nthe High  Court in  A.H.O. No.\t8 of  1097, there anall be a
\nfinal decree  against the plaintiff respondent had in favour
\nof the\tappellant-defendant in the total sum of Rs. 42248.88
\nwith pendente  lite interest thereon @ 6% per annum till the
\ndate of\t the learned  Single  Judge’s  judgment\t dated\t25th
\nFebruary  1997\tand  thereafter\t @  12%\t per  annum  on\t the
\naforesaid amount  till realisation.   The   orders passed by
\nthe learned  Single Judge  in Civil  Review No. 7 of 1987 on
\n7th July  1987 and in Misoellaneous Case No. 127 of 1989 and
\nMisoellaneous Case  No. 155 of 1993 by the Division Bench of
\nthe High Court on 8th October 1997 will also stand set aside
\nin view\t of the\t aforesaid final  decree as  ordered  to  be
\npassed by us.\n<\/p>\n
     That takes\t us to\tthe consideration  of  Civil  appeal
\narising out  of S.L.P (C) No. 12429 of 1990. The appellant –
\nplaintiffs have\t felt aggrieved\t by the order of the learned
\nSingle Judge  dismissing their\tRevision Application No. 226
\nof 1990.  That Revision\t Application arose  out of  an order
\ndated 9th  March 1990  passed  by  the\tlearned\t Subordinate
\nJudge, first  court, Cuttack  in Execution  Case No.  82  of
\n1991. A few introductory facts leading to the present appeal
\ndeserve to be reoapitulated at this stage.\n<\/p>\n
     On 16th  March 1984  the appellants obtained decree for
\nRs. 10720.88  with interest @ 8% per annum and costs against
\nthe defendant-respondent.  The defendant,  as noted earlier,
\nhad filed  a cross-claim  claiming  preliminary\t decree\t for
\naccounts against  the plaintiff,  The Trial Court passed the
\nsaid preliminary  decree as  prayed for\t by  the  defendant.
\nPlaintiff and  the defendant both went in appeal in the High
\nCourt, Defendant’s  appeal against  plaintiff’s money decree
\nwas dismissed.\tPlaintiff’s appeal  against the\t preliminary
\ndecree in  favour of the defendant was allowed on 5th August
\n1070. As  seen earlier,\t the defendant did not challenge the
\nmoney decree  passed in favour of the plaintiff by the Trial
\nCourt and  as confirmed by the High Court. But he challenged
\nthe appellate  order vacating  the preliminary decree in his
\nfavour as  passed by  the Trial Court. As noted earlier this
\nCourt by  its decision\tin the\tcase of Mohinder Singh Jaggi
\n(supra) reversed  the said  decision of\t the High  Court and
\nrestored the  preliminary decree  for accounts\tin favour of
\nthe defendant.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant  sought execution  of  his  money  decree
\nagainst\t the   defendant.  That\t  Execution   Petition\t was
\ndismissed,  The\t respondent.  That  Execution  petition\t was
\ndismissed, The\trespondent  on\tthe  order  hand  sought  to
\nexecute the final accounts decree as passed in his favour by
\nthe Trial  Court and as modified by the learned Single Judge
\nof  the\t  application  under   Order  XXI  Rule\t 10  seeking
\nadjustment of  his decretal amount against the decree-holder
\ndefendant’s claim  as awarded  in  the\tfinal  decree.\tThat
\napplication came  to be rejected by the Executing Court. The
\nsaid order  came to  be\t confirmed  by\tthe  High  Court  in
\nrevision as  per the impugned judgment. In our view no fault
\ncan be\tfound with  the reasoning  adopted  by\tthe  learned
\nSingle Judge  dismissing the  application of  the appellant.
\nThe reason is obvious. Order XXI Rule 10 reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
     R.19. Execution  in case  of cross-
\n     claims under  same decree.\t Whether
\n     application is  made to a Court for
\n     the execution  of\ta  decree  under
\n     which two\tparties are  entitled to
\n     recover sums  of  money  from  each
\n     other, then.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a)  if  the  tow\tsums  are  equal
\n     satisfaction  for\t both  shall  be
\n     entered upon the decree; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b) if  the two  sums are\tunequal,
\n     execution may  be taken only by the
\n     party entitled to be larger sum and
\n     for so  much only\tas remains after
\n     deducting\tthe   smaller  sum,  and
\n     satisfaction for  the  smaller  sum
\n     shall be entered upon the decree.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     For its  applicability it\tmust be\t shown by  the party
\nseeking relief\tthereunder that\t he is entitled to recover a
\nsum of\tmoney under  the very same decree Which is sought to
\nbe executed  by the  other side.  The words ‘application for
\nexecution of  a decree\tunder which tow parties are entitled
\nto recover  sums of  money’ in\tthe opening part of the Rule
\nclearly indicate  that there  should be\t two rival claims by
\ncontesting parties  against each  other arising\t out of\t the
\nvery same decree with is sought to be executed by one of the
\nparties against\t the other  party. In the present case it is
\nnot the\t submission of\tthe appellant that he is awarded any
\namount under  the very\tfinal decree  for accounts which the
\ndefendant seeks\t to execute  against the  appellant. On\t the
\ncontrary his  claim arises out of a money decree against the
\ndefendant which\t has become  final. The\t defendant does\t not
\nseek to\t execute that  money decree as nothing in awarded to
\nthe defendant  under that decree against the plaintiff, what
\nis awarded  to the  defendant is  under a  final  decree  on
\ntaking accounts\t between the parties. Through of course both
\nthese decrees are passed in the same suit, each of them is a
\nseparate decree,  One is  a money  decree  obtained  by\t the
\nplaintiff against the defendant. Another is a final accounts
\ndecree\tpassed\tin  favour  of\tthe  defendant\tagainst\t the
\nplaintiff in  defendant’s cross-claim which is\tanalogous to
\na  cross-suit.\t Under\t these\t circumstances,\t  therefore,
\napplicability of  O.XXXI R.  10, CPC  was already ruled out,
\nwhatever remedy\t the appellant may have for execution of his
\nmoney decree  against the  defendant will have to be pursued
\nindependently,\tThe   High  Court   has\t observed  that\t the
\nappellant’s Execution  Petition against\t the  defendant\t has
\nbeen dismissed\tas time barred. Be that as it may. The short
\nquestion which\thas been  posed\t for  our  consideration  in
\npresent proceedings  is whether\t the  plaintiff\t could\thave
\nresorted to  provisions of  O.XXI R.10,\t CPC for getting his
\nclaim  under   the  money   decree  adjusted   against\t the
\ndefendant’s final  accounts  decree  against  him,  such  an
\neffort on  the part  of the  appellant-plaintiff was clearly
\ncontra-indicated by  the express wording of O.XXI R. 19. CPC
\nas rightly held by the High Court, it may also be noted that
\nboth the  decrees, that is, plaintiff’s money decree against
\nthe defendant  and the\tdefendant’s final decree against the
\nplaintiff were\talso not  passed at  the same  time but were
\npassed at  different times as noted hereinabove. That was an
\nadditional reason  why. XXI  R.10, CPC\twas rightly not held
\napplicable to  the facts  of the  application’s case  by the
\nHigh Court.  For all  these reasons this appeal fails and is
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  result Civil  Appeal arising  out of S.L.P. (C)
\nno. 1001  of 1997  and Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P (C)
\nNo. 8392 of 1995 are partly allowed as aforesaid while Civil
\nAppeal arising\tout of\tS.L.P. (C)  No.\t 12429\tof  1000  is
\ndismissed. In  the facts and circumstances of the case there
\nwill be\t no order  as to  costs in  all these appeals, Order
\naccordingly.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Mahendra Singh Jaggi Etc vs Dataram Jagannath on 15 January, 1997 Author: S Majmudar. Bench: A.S. Anand, S.B. Majmudar PETITIONER: MAHENDRA SINGH JAGGI ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: DATARAM JAGANNATH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15\/01\/1997 BENCH: A.S. ANAND, S.B. MAJMUDAR ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: (WITH VICE VERSA) THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1997 Present: Hon’ble […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-23418","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMahendra Singh Jaggi Etc vs Dataram Jagannath on 15 January, 1997 - 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\/mahendra-singh-jaggi-etc-vs-dataram-jagannath-on-15-january-1997\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mahendra Singh Jaggi Etc vs Dataram Jagannath on 15 January, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahendra-singh-jaggi-etc-vs-dataram-jagannath-on-15-january-1997\" \/>\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=\"1997-01-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-25T13:03:07+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=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahendra-singh-jaggi-etc-vs-dataram-jagannath-on-15-january-1997#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahendra-singh-jaggi-etc-vs-dataram-jagannath-on-15-january-1997\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mahendra Singh Jaggi Etc vs Dataram Jagannath on 15 January, 1997\",\"datePublished\":\"1997-01-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-25T13:03:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahendra-singh-jaggi-etc-vs-dataram-jagannath-on-15-january-1997\"},\"wordCount\":4452,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahendra-singh-jaggi-etc-vs-dataram-jagannath-on-15-january-1997#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahendra-singh-jaggi-etc-vs-dataram-jagannath-on-15-january-1997\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahendra-singh-jaggi-etc-vs-dataram-jagannath-on-15-january-1997\",\"name\":\"Mahendra Singh Jaggi Etc vs Dataram Jagannath on 15 January, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1997-01-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-25T13:03:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahendra-singh-jaggi-etc-vs-dataram-jagannath-on-15-january-1997#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahendra-singh-jaggi-etc-vs-dataram-jagannath-on-15-january-1997\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahendra-singh-jaggi-etc-vs-dataram-jagannath-on-15-january-1997#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mahendra Singh Jaggi Etc vs Dataram Jagannath on 15 January, 1997\"}]},{\"@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":"Mahendra Singh Jaggi Etc vs Dataram Jagannath on 15 January, 1997 - 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\/mahendra-singh-jaggi-etc-vs-dataram-jagannath-on-15-january-1997","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mahendra Singh Jaggi Etc vs Dataram Jagannath on 15 January, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahendra-singh-jaggi-etc-vs-dataram-jagannath-on-15-january-1997","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1997-01-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-25T13:03:07+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":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahendra-singh-jaggi-etc-vs-dataram-jagannath-on-15-january-1997#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahendra-singh-jaggi-etc-vs-dataram-jagannath-on-15-january-1997"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mahendra Singh Jaggi Etc vs Dataram Jagannath on 15 January, 1997","datePublished":"1997-01-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-25T13:03:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahendra-singh-jaggi-etc-vs-dataram-jagannath-on-15-january-1997"},"wordCount":4452,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahendra-singh-jaggi-etc-vs-dataram-jagannath-on-15-january-1997#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahendra-singh-jaggi-etc-vs-dataram-jagannath-on-15-january-1997","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahendra-singh-jaggi-etc-vs-dataram-jagannath-on-15-january-1997","name":"Mahendra Singh Jaggi Etc vs Dataram Jagannath on 15 January, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1997-01-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-25T13:03:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahendra-singh-jaggi-etc-vs-dataram-jagannath-on-15-january-1997#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahendra-singh-jaggi-etc-vs-dataram-jagannath-on-15-january-1997"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahendra-singh-jaggi-etc-vs-dataram-jagannath-on-15-january-1997#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mahendra Singh Jaggi Etc vs Dataram Jagannath on 15 January, 1997"}]},{"@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\/23418","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=23418"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23418\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23418"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23418"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23418"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}