{"id":235917,"date":"2000-03-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-03-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-p-srivastava-vs-shri-r-k-raizada-ors-on-3-march-2000"},"modified":"2016-03-31T21:38:20","modified_gmt":"2016-03-31T16:08:20","slug":"g-p-srivastava-vs-shri-r-k-raizada-ors-on-3-march-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-p-srivastava-vs-shri-r-k-raizada-ors-on-3-march-2000","title":{"rendered":"G.P. Srivastava vs Shri R.K. Raizada &amp; Ors on 3 March, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">G.P. Srivastava vs Shri R.K. Raizada &amp; Ors on 3 March, 2000<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Sethi<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S.Saghir Ahmad., R.P. Sethi.<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nSpecial Leave Petition (civil) 17942-43  of  1999\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nG.P. SRIVASTAVA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSHRI R.K. RAIZADA &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t03\/03\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nS.Saghir Ahmad. &amp; R.P. Sethi.\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>SETHI,J.\n<\/p>\n<p>L&#8230;I&#8230;T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T..J<br \/>\nLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>    On\this failure to appear in the Court either personally<br \/>\nor  through  his  Advocate, the suit for  arrears  of  rent,<br \/>\nejectment  and\tdamages\t filed\tagainst\t the  appellant\t was<br \/>\ndecreed\t ex-parte on 10.3.1983.\t The application for setting<br \/>\naside  the ex-parte judgment and decree filed on 7.4.1983 in<br \/>\nterms  of Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was<br \/>\ndismissed  by  the Trial Judge on 14.5.1985.   The  revision<br \/>\npetition  No.73 of 1985 filed by the appellant was dismissed<br \/>\nby the High Court vide the order impugned on 23rd September,<br \/>\n1999  on  the  ground  that  the  appellant  had  failed  to<br \/>\nestablish  any\tjust  or  sufficient   cause  for  his\t non<br \/>\nappearance  on the date fixed when the ex-parte\t proceedings<br \/>\nwere initiated against him.\n<\/p>\n<p>    We\thave  heard the learned counsel for the parties\t and<br \/>\nperused the papers.@@<br \/>\n\t    JJJJJJJ<\/p>\n<p>    The facts of the case are that respondent-landlord filed<br \/>\na  suit for ejectment and recovery of the arrears of rent on<br \/>\n5.8.1981  alleging therein that as the tenanted premises was<br \/>\nnew  construction,  the same is not covered under U.P.\t Act<br \/>\nNo.30  of 1972.\t The appellant-defendant- tenant was alleged<br \/>\nto  have failed to pay the rent since June, 1980 and he\t was<br \/>\nin   arrears  amounting\t to   Rs.4,000\/-.   A  notice  under<br \/>\nregistered  cover  dated  29th\tMay, 1981 was  sent  by\t the<br \/>\nrespondent  on the address of the appellant terminating\t his<br \/>\ntenancy.   Despite  service of the notice the appellant\t was<br \/>\nstated to have neither vacated the tenanted portion nor paid<br \/>\nthe arrears of rent or damages which necessitated the filing<br \/>\nof  the\t suit.\t The appellant-defendant resisted  the\tsuit<br \/>\nmainly\ton  the ground that the entire plot of land of\tLane<br \/>\nNo.21,\tShanker Nagar, Nirala Nagar, Lucknow was let out  to<br \/>\nhim  in the month of February, 1997 and he was permitted  to<br \/>\nraise  construction thereon.  In pursuance to the  aforesaid<br \/>\npermission,  the  appellant claimed to have constructed\t the<br \/>\nentire\tportion of the tenanted premises after incurring  an<br \/>\namount\tof  Rs.25,000\/-.   Monthly premium of  Rs.300\/-\t was<br \/>\nsettled\t   to\tbe   paid.\tThe   competence   of\t the<br \/>\nrespondent-plaintiff  to  file the suit was also  challenged<br \/>\nalleging  that he was not the landlord of the appellant.  On<br \/>\n10th  March, 1983 the case was called on for hearing by\t the<br \/>\nCourt in the early hours but as no-one appeared on behalf of<br \/>\nthe  appellant,\t the same was again taken up at 2  p.m.\t  As<br \/>\nnone  appeared\tat  that  time also, the  suit\twas  decreed<br \/>\nex-parte  on the basis of evidence produced in the case.  In<br \/>\nhis  application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of  Civil<br \/>\nProcedure,  praying for setting aside ex-parte judgment\t and<br \/>\ndecree,\t the  appellant\t submitted  that he  was  posted  as<br \/>\nAssistant  Engineer  in\t the Irrigation\t Department  and  on<br \/>\naccount\t of the construction of the bridges over the  casual<br \/>\ndrains\the  had\t to remain at the site in the  interests  of<br \/>\npublic.\t  He became indisposed in the evening of 8th  March,<br \/>\n1982  at  the site which was about 85 kilometers  away\tfrom<br \/>\nLucknow\t and  could not move or return back to Lucknow\ttill<br \/>\n11.3.1983  which prevented him to appear in the Trial  Court<br \/>\non 10th March, 1983.  Unfortunately, the young nephew of the<br \/>\ncounsel\t of the appellant met with an accident on  10.3.1983<br \/>\nand  expired  which prevented his counsel also to appear  in<br \/>\nthe  Court on that date.  It was contended that the  absence<br \/>\nof  the appellant and his counsel in the Trial Court was  on<br \/>\naccount\t of the aforesaid circumstances and not intentional.<br \/>\nThe application was supported by his affidavit and a medical<br \/>\ncertificate.   The  Trial  Court did not  accept  the  pleas<br \/>\nraised\tby  the appellant and found that the absence of\t the<br \/>\nappellant  or his counsel in the Court on 10.3.1983 was\t not<br \/>\nfor  just  or sufficient cause.\t The filing of\tthe  medical<br \/>\ncertificate  was not disputed but the same was not relied on<br \/>\nas  it was found to have been obtained from a private doctor<br \/>\nand  not from a Government doctor.  The High Court also\t did<br \/>\nnot accept the contentions of the appellant and noticing his<br \/>\nprevious  conduct rejected the revision petition refusing to<br \/>\nset  aside  the ex-parte decree passed against\thim.   Under<br \/>\nOrder  9 Rule 13 C.P.C.\t an ex-parte decree passed against a<br \/>\ndefendant  can\tbe set aside upon satisfaction of the  Court<br \/>\nthat  either  the  summons  were not duly  served  upon\t the<br \/>\ndefendant or he was prevented by any &#8216;sufficient cause&#8217; from<br \/>\nappearing  when the suit was called on for hearing.   Unless<br \/>\n&#8216;sufficient  cause&#8217;  is\t shown\tfor  non-appearance  of\t the<br \/>\ndefendant  in the case on the date of hearing, the Court has<br \/>\nno  power  to set aside an ex-parte decree.  The words\t&#8220;was<br \/>\nprevented  by  any sufficient cause from appearing&#8221; must  be<br \/>\nliberally  construed  to  enable the court  to\tdo  complete<br \/>\njustice\t between the parties particularly when no negligence<br \/>\nor  inaction is imputable to erring party.  Sufficient cause<br \/>\nfor  the  purpose of Order 9 Rule 13 has to be construed  as<br \/>\nelastic expression for which no hard and fast guidelines can<br \/>\nbe  prescribed.\t The courts have wide discretion in deciding<br \/>\nthe  sufficient cause keeping in view the peculiar facts and<br \/>\ncircumstances  of each case.  The &#8216;sufficient cause&#8217; for non<br \/>\nappearance  refers to the date on which the absence was made<br \/>\na  ground for proceeding ex-parte and cannot be stretched to<br \/>\nrely   upon  other  circumstances   anterior  in  time.\t  If<br \/>\n&#8216;sufficient  cause&#8217;  is made out for non appearance  of\t the<br \/>\ndefendant  on  the  date  fixed for  hearing  when  ex-parte<br \/>\nproceedings  initiated\tagainst him, he cannot be  penalised<br \/>\nfor  his  previous negligence which had been overlooked\t and<br \/>\nthereby\t condoned  earlier.   In  a  case  where   defendant<br \/>\napproaches  the\t Court immediately and within the  statutory<br \/>\ntime  specified, the discretion is normally exercised in his<br \/>\nfavour,\t  provided   the  absence   was\t not   malafide\t  or<br \/>\nintentional.   For  the absence of a party in the  case\t the<br \/>\nother  side can be compensated by adequate costs and the lis<br \/>\ndecided\t on merits.  In the instant case, it is not disputed<br \/>\nthat  the nephew of the counsel of the appellant had died in@@<br \/>\n\t\t\tJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ<br \/>\na  road\t accident  on  the  date of  hearing  and  that\t the@@<br \/>\nJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ<br \/>\nappellant  himself was not at the station on account of\t his<br \/>\nemployment  and\t illness.   The\t mere fact  of\tobtaining  a<br \/>\ncertificate  from a private doctor could not be made a basis<br \/>\nfor rejecting his claim of being sick.\tBoth the Trial Court<br \/>\nas  also  the  High  Court have adopted a  very\t narrow\t and<br \/>\ntechnical  approach  in dealing with a matter pertaining  to<br \/>\nthe  eviction of the appellant despite the fact that he\t had<br \/>\nput  a\treasonable defence and had approached the Court\t for<br \/>\nsetting\t aside\tthe ex-parte decree, admittedly, within\t the<br \/>\nstatutory  period.   Even if the appellant was found  to  be<br \/>\nnegligent,  the\t other side could have been  compensated  by<br \/>\ncosts  and the ex-parte decree set aside on such other terms<br \/>\nand conditions as were deemed proper by the Trial Court.  On<br \/>\naccount of the unrealistic and technical approach adopted by<br \/>\nthe   courts,  the  litigation\t between  the  parties\t has<br \/>\nunnecessarily  been prolonged for about 17 years.  The\tends<br \/>\nof  justice  can be met only if the appellant- defendant  is<br \/>\nallowed\t opportunity  to prove his case within a  reasonable<br \/>\ntime.\tUnder  the circumstances, the appeal is\t allowed  by<br \/>\nsetting\t aside the order of the High Court and of the  Trial@@<br \/>\n\t       JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ<br \/>\nCourt.\t The ex-parte Judgment and decree passed against the@@<br \/>\nJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ<br \/>\nappellant  is set aside on payment of costs of Rs.5,000\/- to<br \/>\nthe  other side.  The Trial Court is directed to afford\t the<br \/>\nappellant  opportunity\tto prove his case and  expedite\t the<br \/>\ndisposal  of  the  suit preferably within a  period  of\t six<br \/>\nmonths from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India G.P. Srivastava vs Shri R.K. Raizada &amp; Ors on 3 March, 2000 Author: Sethi Bench: S.Saghir Ahmad., R.P. Sethi. CASE NO.: Special Leave Petition (civil) 17942-43 of 1999 PETITIONER: G.P. SRIVASTAVA Vs. RESPONDENT: SHRI R.K. RAIZADA &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03\/03\/2000 BENCH: S.Saghir Ahmad. &amp; R.P. Sethi. JUDGMENT: SETHI,J. L&#8230;I&#8230;T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T..J [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-235917","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>G.P. Srivastava vs Shri R.K. Raizada &amp; Ors on 3 March, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-p-srivastava-vs-shri-r-k-raizada-ors-on-3-march-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"G.P. Srivastava vs Shri R.K. Raizada &amp; Ors on 3 March, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-p-srivastava-vs-shri-r-k-raizada-ors-on-3-march-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2000-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-31T16:08:20+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-p-srivastava-vs-shri-r-k-raizada-ors-on-3-march-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-p-srivastava-vs-shri-r-k-raizada-ors-on-3-march-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"G.P. Srivastava vs Shri R.K. Raizada &amp; Ors on 3 March, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-31T16:08:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-p-srivastava-vs-shri-r-k-raizada-ors-on-3-march-2000\"},\"wordCount\":1304,\"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\\\/g-p-srivastava-vs-shri-r-k-raizada-ors-on-3-march-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-p-srivastava-vs-shri-r-k-raizada-ors-on-3-march-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-p-srivastava-vs-shri-r-k-raizada-ors-on-3-march-2000\",\"name\":\"G.P. Srivastava vs Shri R.K. Raizada &amp; Ors on 3 March, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-31T16:08:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-p-srivastava-vs-shri-r-k-raizada-ors-on-3-march-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-p-srivastava-vs-shri-r-k-raizada-ors-on-3-march-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-p-srivastava-vs-shri-r-k-raizada-ors-on-3-march-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"G.P. Srivastava vs Shri R.K. Raizada &amp; Ors on 3 March, 2000\"}]},{\"@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":"G.P. Srivastava vs Shri R.K. Raizada &amp; Ors on 3 March, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-p-srivastava-vs-shri-r-k-raizada-ors-on-3-march-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"G.P. Srivastava vs Shri R.K. Raizada &amp; Ors on 3 March, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-p-srivastava-vs-shri-r-k-raizada-ors-on-3-march-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-31T16:08:20+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-p-srivastava-vs-shri-r-k-raizada-ors-on-3-march-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-p-srivastava-vs-shri-r-k-raizada-ors-on-3-march-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"G.P. Srivastava vs Shri R.K. Raizada &amp; Ors on 3 March, 2000","datePublished":"2000-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-31T16:08:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-p-srivastava-vs-shri-r-k-raizada-ors-on-3-march-2000"},"wordCount":1304,"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\/g-p-srivastava-vs-shri-r-k-raizada-ors-on-3-march-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-p-srivastava-vs-shri-r-k-raizada-ors-on-3-march-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-p-srivastava-vs-shri-r-k-raizada-ors-on-3-march-2000","name":"G.P. Srivastava vs Shri R.K. Raizada &amp; Ors on 3 March, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-31T16:08:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-p-srivastava-vs-shri-r-k-raizada-ors-on-3-march-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-p-srivastava-vs-shri-r-k-raizada-ors-on-3-march-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-p-srivastava-vs-shri-r-k-raizada-ors-on-3-march-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"G.P. Srivastava vs Shri R.K. Raizada &amp; Ors on 3 March, 2000"}]},{"@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\/235917","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=235917"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/235917\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=235917"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=235917"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=235917"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}