{"id":240252,"date":"2011-10-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-10-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-ayub-ali-ors-vs-alamgir-khan-ors-on-13-october-2011"},"modified":"2018-11-06T12:33:41","modified_gmt":"2018-11-06T07:03:41","slug":"md-ayub-ali-ors-vs-alamgir-khan-ors-on-13-october-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-ayub-ali-ors-vs-alamgir-khan-ors-on-13-october-2011","title":{"rendered":"Md. Ayub Ali & Ors vs Alamgir Khan & Ors on 13 October, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court – Orders<\/div>\n
Md. Ayub Ali & Ors vs Alamgir Khan & Ors on 13 October, 2011<\/div>\n
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA\n                             First Appeal No.283 of 1987\n                                    Md. Ayub Ali & Ors\n                                          Versus\n                                  Alamgir Khan & Ors\n                             ----------------------------------\n\n                                           ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
17.   13.10.2011.             I have heard      the learned       counsel for the<\/p>\n
                     appellant on interlocutory application No.6262 of 2011.<\/p>\n
                              (2) This application has been filed under Order<\/p>\n
                     22 Rule 3 and 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with<\/p>\n
                     Section 5 of the Limitation Act by the appellant.             It is<\/p>\n
                     stated that appellant No.5, Bibi Mehrun Nisa died on<\/p>\n
                     10.06.2008 leaving behind the legal representatives as<\/p>\n
                     mentioned in detail in paragraph 1 of the said application.<\/p>\n
                     The   interlocutory   application     has    been     filed     on<\/p>\n
                     12.09.2011.\n<\/p>\n
                              (3) At paragraph 4, it has been stated that the<\/p>\n
                     deceased appellant No.5 was living with her husband,<\/p>\n
                     Sheikh Abbash at Pirpaiti and doing business. Appellants<\/p>\n
                     as such were not aware about the pendency of the appeal<\/p>\n
                     in this Hon’ble Court.   Likewise at paragraph 5, it has<\/p>\n
                     been stated that recently appellants during Ramzan came<\/p>\n
                     after years to Patna and knew about pendnecy of the<\/p>\n
                     appeal   and   appearing    by      filing   this   application.<\/p>\n
                     Therefore, it was prayed for condoning the delay and also<\/p>\n
                     for setting aside abatement.\n<\/p>\n
                              (4) In view of the above facts stated in the
\n                      -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
application, the only explanation given is that the<\/p>\n
appellants were not knowing the pendency of this appeal.<\/p>\n
         (5) From perusal of the memo of appeal, it<\/p>\n
appears that there are 7 appellants. Appellant No.1 to 3<\/p>\n
are the sons and appellant No.4 to 7 are the daughters of<\/p>\n
late Md. Yaqub.       Out of them only appellant No.5 died.<\/p>\n
The other      defendants     did   not take any steps         for<\/p>\n
substitution. The ground for delay has been stated that<\/p>\n
the appellants were not knowing about the pendency of<\/p>\n
the First Appeal. Except this explanation regarding delay<\/p>\n
of 3 years, there is no explanation.                There is no<\/p>\n
explanation as to why the other appellants did not take<\/p>\n
any step for substitution. It is not reliable that the heirs<\/p>\n
of appellant No.5 were not knowing about the pendency<\/p>\n
of the present appeal because of the fact that the<\/p>\n
appellant     No.5    was   closely    related   to   the    other<\/p>\n
appellants.\n<\/p>\n
         (6) The Apex Court in 2009 (2) Supreme<\/p>\n
Court    cases        689   R.B.      Ramlingam        Vs.   R.B.<\/p>\n
Bhubneshwari has held that Section 5 of the<\/p>\n
Limitation     Act,    1963    does     not   lay     down    any<\/p>\n
standard or objective test.           The test of “sufficient<\/p>\n
cause” is purely an individualistic taste.             It is not<\/p>\n
an objective test. Therefore, no two cases can be<\/p>\n
treated alike. The statute of limitation has left the<\/p>\n
concept of “sufficient cause” delightfully undefined<\/p>\n
thereby leaving to the Court a well intentioned
\n                     -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
discretion to decide the individual cases whether<\/p>\n
circumstances exist establishing “sufficient cause”.<\/p>\n
There are no categories of “sufficient cause”.         The<\/p>\n
categories of sufficient cause are never exhausted. Each<\/p>\n
case spells out a unique experience to be dealt with by a<\/p>\n
Court as such.\n<\/p>\n
         (7) No doubt, it is well settled principle of law<\/p>\n
that this provision, i.e., Section 5 of the Limitation Act,<\/p>\n
1963 should be construed liberally.     The Court has to<\/p>\n
place itself in the position of the person concerned and<\/p>\n
find out if the delay can be said to have resulted from the<\/p>\n
cause which he has adduced and if it can be recorded as<\/p>\n
sufficient cause.\n<\/p>\n
         (8) In 2010 (8) Supreme Court cases 685<\/p>\n
Balwant Singh (dead) Vs. Jagdish Singh and Ors,<\/p>\n
the Apex Court at paragraph 32, 33, 34 and 35 has held<\/p>\n
as follows :\n<\/p>\n
               “32. It must be kept in mind that
\n      whenever a law is enacted by the legislature, it is
\n      intended to be enforced in its proper perspective.
\n      It is an equally settled principle of law that the
\n      provisions of a statute, including every word, have
\n      to be given full effect, keeping the legislative
\n      intent in mind, in order to ensure that the
\n      projected object is achieved. In other words, no
\n      provisions can be treated to have been enacted
\n      purposelessly.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               33. Furthermore, it is also a well-settled
\n      canon of interpretative jurisprudence that the
\n      Court should not give such an interpretation to the
\n      provisions which would render the provision
\n      ineffective or odious. Once the legislature has
\n      enacted the provisions of Order 22, with particular
\n      reference to Rule 9, and the provisions of the
\n      Limitation Act are applied to the entertainment of
\n      such an application, all these provisions have to
\n      be given their true and correct meaning and must
\n      be applied wherever called for. If we accept the
\n      contention of the learned counsel appearing for
\n                 -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
      the applicant that the Court should take a very
\n      liberal approach and interpret these provisions
\n      (Order 22 Rule 9 CPC and Section 5 of the
\n      Limitation Act) in such a manner and so liberally,
\n      irrespective of the period of delay, it would
\n      amount to practically rendering all these
\n      provisions redundant and inoperative.       Such
\n      approach or interpretation would hardly be
\n      permissible in law.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               34. Liberal construction of the expression
\n      “sufficient cause” is intended to advance
\n      substantial justice which itself presupposes no
\n      negligence or inaction on the part of the applicant,
\n      to whom want of bona fide is imputable. There
\n      can be instances where the Court should condone
\n      the delay; equally there would be cases where the
\n      Court must exercise its discretion against the
\n      applicant for want of any of these ingredients or
\n      where it does not reflect “sufficient cause” as
\n      understood in law.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               35. The expression “sufficient cause”
\n      implies the presence of legal and adequate
\n      reasons. The word “sufficient” means adequate
\n      enough, as much as may be necessary to answer
\n      the purpose intended. It embraces no more than
\n      that which provides a plentitude which, when
\n      done, suffices to accomplish the purpose intended
\n      in the light of existing circumstances and when
\n      viewed from the reasonable standard of practical
\n      and cautious men. The sufficient cause should be
\n      such as it would persuade the Court, in exercise of
\n      its judicial discretion, to treat the delay as an
\n      excusable one. These provisions give the courts
\n      enough power and discretion to apply a law in a
\n      meaningful manner, while assuring that the
\n      purpose of enacting such a law does not stand
\n      frustrated.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (9) Therefore, in view of the settled principle of<\/p>\n
law laid down by the Apex Court, the party should show<\/p>\n
that besides acting bonafide, it had taken all possible<\/p>\n
steps within its power and control and had approached<\/p>\n
the Court without any unnecessary delay.      The test is<\/p>\n
whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it<\/p>\n
could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of<\/p>\n
due care and attention.\n<\/p>\n
                 -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
        (10) In 2008 (17) Supreme Court cases 448<\/p>\n
Pundlik Jalam Patil (dead) Vs. Executive Engineer,<\/p>\n
Jalgaon Medium Project and Anr., the Apex Court at<\/p>\n
paragraph 14 has held as follows :\n<\/p>\n
                “14. It is true that the power to condone
\n      the delay rests with the Court in which the
\n      application was filed beyond time and decide
\n      whether there is sufficient cause for condoning
\n      the delay and ordinarily the superior Court may
\n      not interfere with such discretion even if some
\n      error is to be found in the discretion so exercised
\n      by the Court but where there is no sufficient cause
\n      for condoning the delay but the delay was
\n      condoned, it is a case of discretion not being
\n      exercised judicially and the order becomes
\n      vulnerable and susceptible for its correction by
\n      the superior court. The High Court having found
\n      that the respondent in its application made
\n      incorrect submission that it had no knowledge of
\n      the award passed by the Reference Court ought to
\n      have refused to exercise its discretion. The High
\n      Court exercised its discretion on wrong principles.
\n      In that view of the matter, we cannot sustain the
\n      exercise of discretion in the manner done by the
\n      High Court.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (11) In this aforesaid decision at paragraph 12,<\/p>\n
the Apex Court has held that “in our considered<\/p>\n
opinion incorrect statement made in the application<\/p>\n
seeking condonation of delay itself is sufficient to<\/p>\n
reject the application without any further inquiry as<\/p>\n
to whether the averments made in the application<\/p>\n
reveals sufficient cause to condone the delay.<\/p>\n
        (12) In the present case as stated above, the<\/p>\n
only explanation given is that the appellants have no<\/p>\n
knowledge about the pendency of the appeal.            This<\/p>\n
explanation is not acceptable.    It appears to be false<\/p>\n
statements and this statement has been made with a<\/p>\n
view to get the delay condoned.      It is well settled that
\n                                                   -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
                               this provision should, no doubt, be construed liberally but<\/p>\n
                               at the same time, the Court must see that no litigant<\/p>\n
                               should be allowed to take undue advantage of the liberal<\/p>\n
                               construction of the provision by the Court.                In my<\/p>\n
                               opinion, therefore, this explanation given by the appellant<\/p>\n
                               is not sufficient cause for condoning the delay.              The<\/p>\n
                               conduct of the appellants shows their laches and inaction.<\/p>\n
                               I, therefore, find that the appellants have failed to prove<\/p>\n
                               the   sufficient   cause   for   not   filing   the   substitution<\/p>\n
                               application within the period prescribed. Accordingly, the<\/p>\n
                               application for substitution filed by the appellant is<\/p>\n
                               rejected as barred by limitation and, therefore, the<\/p>\n
                               abatement cannot be set aside. Hence, it is held that the<\/p>\n
                               Appeal has abated against the heirs of the appellant<\/p>\n
                               No.5.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                                  (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)<\/p>\n
Patna High Court, Patna
\nThe 13thday of October, 2011
\nSanjeev\/A.F.R.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court – Orders Md. Ayub Ali & Ors vs Alamgir Khan & Ors on 13 October, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA First Appeal No.283 of 1987 Md. Ayub Ali & Ors Versus Alamgir Khan & Ors ———————————- ORDER 17. 13.10.2011. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant […]<\/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":[8,27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-240252","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-patna-high-court-orders"],"yoast_head":"\nMd. Ayub Ali & Ors vs Alamgir Khan & Ors on 13 October, 2011 - 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\/md-ayub-ali-ors-vs-alamgir-khan-ors-on-13-october-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Md. Ayub Ali & Ors vs Alamgir Khan & Ors on 13 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-ayub-ali-ors-vs-alamgir-khan-ors-on-13-october-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-06T07:03:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/md-ayub-ali-ors-vs-alamgir-khan-ors-on-13-october-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/md-ayub-ali-ors-vs-alamgir-khan-ors-on-13-october-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Md. Ayub Ali & Ors vs Alamgir Khan & Ors on 13 October, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-06T07:03:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/md-ayub-ali-ors-vs-alamgir-khan-ors-on-13-october-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1495,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Patna High Court - Orders\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/md-ayub-ali-ors-vs-alamgir-khan-ors-on-13-october-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/md-ayub-ali-ors-vs-alamgir-khan-ors-on-13-october-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/md-ayub-ali-ors-vs-alamgir-khan-ors-on-13-october-2011\",\"name\":\"Md. Ayub Ali & Ors vs Alamgir Khan & Ors on 13 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-06T07:03:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/md-ayub-ali-ors-vs-alamgir-khan-ors-on-13-october-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/md-ayub-ali-ors-vs-alamgir-khan-ors-on-13-october-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/md-ayub-ali-ors-vs-alamgir-khan-ors-on-13-october-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Md. Ayub Ali & Ors vs Alamgir Khan & Ors on 13 October, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Md. Ayub Ali & Ors vs Alamgir Khan & Ors on 13 October, 2011 - 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\/md-ayub-ali-ors-vs-alamgir-khan-ors-on-13-october-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Md. Ayub Ali & Ors vs Alamgir Khan & Ors on 13 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-ayub-ali-ors-vs-alamgir-khan-ors-on-13-october-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-06T07:03:41+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-ayub-ali-ors-vs-alamgir-khan-ors-on-13-october-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-ayub-ali-ors-vs-alamgir-khan-ors-on-13-october-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Md. Ayub Ali & Ors vs Alamgir Khan & Ors on 13 October, 2011","datePublished":"2011-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-06T07:03:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-ayub-ali-ors-vs-alamgir-khan-ors-on-13-october-2011"},"wordCount":1495,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Patna High Court - Orders"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-ayub-ali-ors-vs-alamgir-khan-ors-on-13-october-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-ayub-ali-ors-vs-alamgir-khan-ors-on-13-october-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-ayub-ali-ors-vs-alamgir-khan-ors-on-13-october-2011","name":"Md. Ayub Ali & Ors vs Alamgir Khan & Ors on 13 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-06T07:03:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-ayub-ali-ors-vs-alamgir-khan-ors-on-13-october-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-ayub-ali-ors-vs-alamgir-khan-ors-on-13-october-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-ayub-ali-ors-vs-alamgir-khan-ors-on-13-october-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Md. Ayub Ali & Ors vs Alamgir Khan & Ors on 13 October, 2011"}]},{"@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\/240252","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=240252"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/240252\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=240252"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=240252"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=240252"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}