{"id":237112,"date":"2010-11-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paulose-vs-geemon-on-12-november-2010"},"modified":"2018-02-12T14:29:34","modified_gmt":"2018-02-12T08:59:34","slug":"paulose-vs-geemon-on-12-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paulose-vs-geemon-on-12-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"Paulose vs Geemon on 12 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Paulose vs Geemon on 12 November, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRFA.No. 331 of 2009()\n\n\n1. PAULOSE, S\/O.YOHANNAN,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. JOHNSON, S\/O.GEORGE,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. GEEMON, S\/O.CHACKO,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.SAJU.S.A\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN\n\n Dated :12\/11\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
            Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan<\/p>\n
                         &<\/p>\n
                P.Bhavadasan, JJ.\n<\/p>\n
  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
              R.F.A.No.331 of 2009-D<\/p>\n
  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
     Dated this the 12th day of November, 2010.<\/p>\n
                      Order<\/p>\n
  Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.<\/p>\n
1.This  appeal  arises   from   a  suit   filed  on<\/p>\n
 18.3.2008. It is a suit for specific performance<\/p>\n
 of a contract for sale. The suit is decreed on<\/p>\n
 15.11.2008.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.It is a matter to be recognised that the court<\/p>\n
 below has attempted to dispose of the suit within<\/p>\n
 a   period  of  around   seven  months.  But,  the<\/p>\n
 complaint of the appealing defendants is that<\/p>\n
 they did not have the opportunity to contest the<\/p>\n
 matter    by   adducing    appropriate   evidence,<\/p>\n
 including by summoning witnesses and also for<\/p>\n
 further appropriate comparison of documents etc.<\/p>\n
RFA331\/09              -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
3.While  the  plaintiff    pleads   that there  is a<\/p>\n
  contract for sale, the first defendant denies it.<\/p>\n
  The second defendant, stated to be a relative of<\/p>\n
  the first defendant, is the transferee of the<\/p>\n
  property covered by the alleged contract. This is<\/p>\n
  the nature of the dispute.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.The   ‘B’ diary  shows     that  on  9.4.2008, both<\/p>\n
  defendants appeared and the case was adjourned to<\/p>\n
  11.6.2008  for  filing      written statement.  The<\/p>\n
  defendants promptly filed written statement on<\/p>\n
  11.6.2008 itself and for issues, the case was<\/p>\n
  adjourned to 21.7.2008. Following settlement of<\/p>\n
  issues on 21.7.2008, the matter was listed on<\/p>\n
  6.8.2008 and  on 21.8.2010 for payment of balance<\/p>\n
  court fee. Recording that the court fee was paid<\/p>\n
  on 21.8.2008, the case was adjourned to 19.9.2008<\/p>\n
  for further steps. It appears that both sides did<\/p>\n
  not take any further steps and the matter was<\/p>\n
  listed to 10.11.2008 for trial in the special<\/p>\n
  list.    We   find     that     I.A.1578\/2008   and<\/p>\n
RFA331\/09              -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
  I.A.1579\/2008 were filed by the defendants along<\/p>\n
  with the schedule of witnesses. That was on the<\/p>\n
  date on which the suit stood listed for trial.<\/p>\n
  The B diary further shows that the plaintiff’s<\/p>\n
  counsel sought for adjournment on 10.11.2008 and<\/p>\n
  accordingly,  the   examination     of  P.W.1   was<\/p>\n
  adjourned to 11.11.2008.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5.With the aforesaid, we note that the documents,<\/p>\n
  which were marked on the side of the plaintiff as<\/p>\n
  Exts.A2, A3 and A8, the certified copies of sale<\/p>\n
  deeds as also a receipt and a blank cheque, were<\/p>\n
  produced   before  the      court  below  only  on<\/p>\n
  10.11.2008, going by the index prepared by the<\/p>\n
  lower court while it sent up the LCRs. While the<\/p>\n
  request  of  the  defendant     made on  10.11.2008<\/p>\n
  remains answered and no orders were issued on<\/p>\n
  I.A.1578\/2008 and I.A.1579\/2008, we may notice<\/p>\n
  that the defendant had placed two documents which<\/p>\n
  are   marked as  Exts.B1     and  B2  as  early as<\/p>\n
  11.11.2008.  With   the     aforesaid  facts  being<\/p>\n
  noticed, we advert to the following statement in<\/p>\n
RFA331\/09              -: 4 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
  the memorandum of appeal filed before us:<\/p>\n
         “4) The suit was posted for trial on
\n         10.11.2008.      Advocate        Santhosh
\n         K.Sreedharan, a lawyer practicing at
\n         Perumbavoor and Muvattupuzha courts
\n         was appearing for the defendants in
\n         the above matter. He was having some
\n         physical ailments and he was not in a
\n         position to conduct the trial of the
\n         case. He wanted to leave the place
\n         for urgent medical check-up. The 1st
\n         defendant  also     was  suffering  from
\n         high   Blood    Pressure     and   heart
\n         ailments.  He   was     advised  complete
\n         medical rest for 2 months. He was
\n         staying  in  the     house   of  the  2nd
\n         defendant at Muvattupuzha. It was at
\n         that stage the Advocate informed the
\n         1st defendant about his difficulty in
\n         conducting the case and advised him
\n         to engage another counsel for the
\n         conduct of the case. The 2nd defendant
\n         was  away   in   connection    with  his
\n         employment.  The     1st  defendant even
\n         though he was advised complete rest,
\n         went to the office of the Advocate
\n         and   contacted    him.    Then  he  was
\n         advised that another lawyer attached<\/p>\n
RFA331\/09              -: 5 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
         to   the   office      of    Adv.Santhosh
\n         K.Sreedharan can be entrusted with
\n         the case and since 1st defendant is
\n         not  in  a  position     to  attend  the
\n         court, an adjournment can be sought
\n         for on the hearing date. Accordingly
\n         Advocate      T.E.Varkey         entered
\n         appearance   for    the   1st defendant.
\n         Adv.Santhosh K.Sreedharan has having
\n         vakalath for both the defendants. On
\n         10.11.2008 applications were filed in
\n         the case seeking adjournment of the
\n         trial of the case and also for taking
\n         some pre-trial steps which was not
\n         taken  in   time.     Even   though  the
\n         application for pre-trial steps was
\n         allowed, the case was taken for trial
\n         on that day itself. The Advocate for
\n         the appellants has to cross examine
\n         the witnesses on the side of the
\n         plaintiff   but   because    of  serious
\n         illness 1st defendant could not attend
\n         the court and give oral evidence. 2nd
\n         defendant   was      not  available   in
\n         station also. Since there was no oral
\n         evidence adduced on the side of the
\n         defendants, the trial court mainly
\n         relying  on   the     testimony  of  the
\n         witnesses   on     the   side    of  the<\/p>\n
RFA331\/09               -: 6 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
          plaintiff decreed the suit. It is
\n          submitted that it was only because of
\n          circumstances beyond the control of
\n          the defendants that they could not
\n          adduce evidence on that day.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
6.It     is   submitted      by   both   sides   that<\/p>\n
  Adv.Sri.Santhosh K.Sreedharan mentioned of in the<\/p>\n
  afore-quoted portion of the appeal memorandum is<\/p>\n
  now no more. There is also no serious challenge<\/p>\n
  to the fact situation disclosed by the afore-<\/p>\n
  quoted averments in the memorandum of appeal.<\/p>\n
7.We are satisfied that in the matter of trial of<\/p>\n
  the case, the defendants did not have appropriate<\/p>\n
  opportunity to adduce evidence and contest the<\/p>\n
  suit including by appropriate cross examination<\/p>\n
  of   plaintiff’s  witnesses.    We  take  this view<\/p>\n
  because going by the materials, we are impressed<\/p>\n
  that whatever was the cross examination of P.W.1<\/p>\n
  was   only  because  of      the compulsion of  the<\/p>\n
  circumstances.\n<\/p>\n
RFA331\/09              -: 7 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
8.For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the<\/p>\n
  impugned decree and judgment and all further<\/p>\n
  proceedings from the stage of listing of the case<\/p>\n
  in the special list. Consequently, we remand the<\/p>\n
  suit for de novo consideration providing both<\/p>\n
  sides to take further steps and also to adduce<\/p>\n
  all evidence. It is clarified that no observation<\/p>\n
  made in this judgment will stand in the way of<\/p>\n
  the court below at the final hearing of the<\/p>\n
  matter and we have not expressed anything on the<\/p>\n
  merits.  The  defendants     have  to  be  given  an<\/p>\n
  opportunity   to   further       cross-examine  the<\/p>\n
  witnesses already examined on the side of the<\/p>\n
  plaintiff. The evidence already on record as<\/p>\n
  evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 would continue on<\/p>\n
  record and the opportunity being given is to<\/p>\n
  adduce  further  evidence.     The  request  of the<\/p>\n
  plaintiff  that  there      may be   an  expeditious<\/p>\n
  further consideration is recorded. Appeal allowed<\/p>\n
  accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
9.We find that the order of remand is not caused by<\/p>\n
RFA331\/09              -: 8 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
  any fault of the appellants, disentitling them to<\/p>\n
  refund of court fee in terms of Section 67 of Act<\/p>\n
  10 of 1960. We, accordingly, order refund of the<\/p>\n
  court fee paid on this memorandum of appeal. We<\/p>\n
  note that this matter being decided at the stage<\/p>\n
  of admission, the court fee paid is only 1\/3rd of<\/p>\n
  the amount of fee due under the memorandum of<\/p>\n
  appeal. Yet, we do not find any ground to refuse<\/p>\n
  refund because the proviso to Section 69 which<\/p>\n
  applies to cases of compromise does not apply to<\/p>\n
  cases which fall under Section 67 where the court<\/p>\n
  makes an order of remand.\n<\/p>\n
  The parties shall appear before the court below<\/p>\n
  on 20.12.2010.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                         Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,
\n                                    Judge.\n<\/p>\n
                                  P.Bhavadasan,
\n                                     Judge.\n<\/p>\n
Sha\/0712<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Paulose vs Geemon on 12 November, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RFA.No. 331 of 2009() 1. PAULOSE, S\/O.YOHANNAN, … Petitioner 2. JOHNSON, S\/O.GEORGE, Vs 1. GEEMON, S\/O.CHACKO, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.SAJU.S.A For Respondent :SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM The Hon’ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN The Hon’ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN Dated […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-237112","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPaulose vs Geemon on 12 November, 2010 - 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\/paulose-vs-geemon-on-12-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Paulose vs Geemon on 12 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paulose-vs-geemon-on-12-november-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-11-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-12T08:59:34+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paulose-vs-geemon-on-12-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paulose-vs-geemon-on-12-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Paulose vs Geemon on 12 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-12T08:59:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paulose-vs-geemon-on-12-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1218,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paulose-vs-geemon-on-12-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paulose-vs-geemon-on-12-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paulose-vs-geemon-on-12-november-2010\",\"name\":\"Paulose vs Geemon on 12 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-12T08:59:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paulose-vs-geemon-on-12-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paulose-vs-geemon-on-12-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paulose-vs-geemon-on-12-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Paulose vs Geemon on 12 November, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Paulose vs Geemon on 12 November, 2010 - 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\/paulose-vs-geemon-on-12-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Paulose vs Geemon on 12 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paulose-vs-geemon-on-12-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-12T08:59:34+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paulose-vs-geemon-on-12-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paulose-vs-geemon-on-12-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Paulose vs Geemon on 12 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-12T08:59:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paulose-vs-geemon-on-12-november-2010"},"wordCount":1218,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paulose-vs-geemon-on-12-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paulose-vs-geemon-on-12-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paulose-vs-geemon-on-12-november-2010","name":"Paulose vs Geemon on 12 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-12T08:59:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paulose-vs-geemon-on-12-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paulose-vs-geemon-on-12-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paulose-vs-geemon-on-12-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Paulose vs Geemon on 12 November, 2010"}]},{"@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\/237112","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=237112"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237112\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=237112"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=237112"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=237112"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}