{"id":246118,"date":"2011-04-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-04-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-123-of-2002-vs-mr-hasit-h-joshi-for-on-25-april-2011"},"modified":"2017-09-22T17:04:42","modified_gmt":"2017-09-22T11:34:42","slug":"second-appeal-no-123-of-2002-vs-mr-hasit-h-joshi-for-on-25-april-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-123-of-2002-vs-mr-hasit-h-joshi-for-on-25-april-2011","title":{"rendered":"Second Appeal No. 123 Of 2002 vs Mr Hasit H Joshi For on 25 April, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Second Appeal No. 123 Of 2002 vs Mr Hasit H Joshi For on 25 April, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: D.A.Mehta,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n\n\n\n     SECOND APPEAL No 123 of 2002\n       WITH\n       CIVIL APPLICATION No.6057 of 2002\n     --------------------------------------------------------------\n<\/pre>\n<pre>     HEIR OF NATHUBHAI MULUBHAI      KESHOR\nVersus\n<\/pre>\n<p>     RATANBEN CHHOTALAL MODH D\/O BHANJIBHAI VAKABHAI\n<\/p>\n<p>     &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211;<br \/>\n     Appearance:\n<\/p>\n<p>     1. Second Appeal No. 123 of 2002<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">            MR NIRAV C THAKKAR for Appellant No. 1<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">            MR HASIT H JOSHI for Respondent No. 1<\/span>\n<\/p>\n<p>     &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>              CORAM : MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA<br \/>\n              Date of Order: 02\/05\/2003<\/p>\n<p>COMMON ORDER\n<\/p>\n<p>     1.This appeal has been filed against the judgement<br \/>\n     and order dated 08.07.2002 in Civil Regular Appeal No.26<br \/>\n     of 2002 by the Court of Assistant Judge, Jamnagar,<br \/>\n     whereby the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil<br \/>\n     Suit No.233 of 1998 by the Court of 5th Joint Civil Judge<br \/>\n     (S.D.), Jamnagar on 26.03.2002 came to be confirmed. The<br \/>\n     appellant herein is the original defendant in the suit<br \/>\n     while the respondent herein is the original plaintiff in<br \/>\n     the suit. The parties shall henceforth, for the sake of<br \/>\n     convenience, be referred to as the plaintiff and the<br \/>\n     defendant.\n<\/p>\n<p>     2.The plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration<br \/>\n     and injunction to the effect that as the suit property<br \/>\n     was not rented to the defendant and the defendant had<br \/>\n     carried out illegal construction thereon the defendant<br \/>\n     must be directed not to enter and use the property and<br \/>\n     remove the illegal construction. The trial Court decreed<br \/>\n     the suit declaring that the portion adjoining the rented<br \/>\n     premises is of sole ownership of the plaintiff and does<br \/>\n     not form part of rented premises; that the defendant<br \/>\n     should pull down the walls, room and bathroom constructed<br \/>\n     on the terrace portion and make the terrace open at the<br \/>\n     cost to be borne by the defendant. This judgement and<br \/>\n     order have been confirmed by the appellate Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>     3.Mr.Nirav C.     Thakkar, the   learned   advocate<br \/>\n     appearing   on   behalf of the   appellant &#8211; defendant,<br \/>\n submitted that both the lower Courts had failed to<br \/>\nappreciate and deal with the aspect that the trial Court<br \/>\ncould not have exercised the jurisdiction and entertained<br \/>\nthe suit, and the jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute<br \/>\nbetween the parties lay with the rent Court. In the<br \/>\nalternative, it was submitted that the suit had been<br \/>\ndecreed without providing full and proper opportunity to<br \/>\nthe defendant with special reference to the fact that the<br \/>\ndefendant had not been provided adequate opportunity to<br \/>\ncross-examine the witnesses who had deposed as witnesses<br \/>\nof the plaintiff. On merits, it was submitted that both<br \/>\nthe lower Courts failed to appreciate that the defendant<br \/>\nwas in possession of the suit premises right since<br \/>\ninception, by virtue of rent note executed between the<br \/>\npredecessor-in-title     of     the     plaintiff     and<br \/>\npredecessor-in-title of the defendant, and the defendant<br \/>\nhad not carried out any illegal construction.   That the<br \/>\npremises were in the same position as they had been<br \/>\noriginally rented by the defendant and hence, the prayer<br \/>\nto   remove illegal construction, vacate the terrace<br \/>\nportion was not supported by facts and evidence on<br \/>\nrecord.   It was submitted by Mr.Thakkar, therefore, that<br \/>\nsubstantial question of law arose out of the impugned<br \/>\njudgement dated 08.07.2002.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.As against this, Mr.Hasit H. Joshi, the learned<br \/>\nadvocate appearing on behalf of the plaintiff, submitted<br \/>\nthat the orders of both the lower Courts were in<br \/>\naccordance with law, based on facts and evidence on<br \/>\nrecord and deserve no interference.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.The   contention   regarding   jurisdiction   has<br \/>\nadmittedly been raised for the first time before the<br \/>\nappellate Court in the memorandum of appeal and written<br \/>\nsubmissions.   The grievance of the defendant to the<br \/>\neffect that the said contention has not been dealt with<br \/>\nis misconceived.   It is an admitted position between the<br \/>\nparties that there is no dispute as regards the rented<br \/>\npremises, the dispute is in relation to portion adjoining<br \/>\nthe rented premises, i.e. as to whether the said portion<br \/>\nwas rented to the defendant, or whether the defendant was<br \/>\npermitted user of the said premises, and whether there<br \/>\nwas an illegal construction upon such adjoining premises.<br \/>\nTherefore, it cannot be stated that the appellate Court<br \/>\ncommitted any error when it did not deal with the issue<br \/>\nfor the first time before it only in memorandum of appeal<br \/>\nand written submissions. Furthermore, no reason is shown<br \/>\nas to why the said ground \/ defence was not taken before<br \/>\nthe Trial Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.In   relation   to   the   contention   regarding<br \/>\n opportunity, the same has been succinctly dealt with by<br \/>\nthe appellate Court in paragraph 9 of the impugned<br \/>\njudgment and bears no repetition. Suffice it to state<br \/>\nthat the appellate Court has considered the submissions<br \/>\nof the defendant in light of the record and proceedings<br \/>\nof the trial Court and thereafter recorded its finding<br \/>\nthat the defendant had been granted adequate opportunity<br \/>\nand no case was made out for reminding the matter to the<br \/>\ntrial Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.The rent note which is available at Exh.22 in no<br \/>\nuncertain terms records that only the room which has to<br \/>\nbe used as shop has been rented out and the portion above<br \/>\nthe room i.e. the terrace portion shall be of exclusive<br \/>\npossession and ownership of the predecessor-in-title of<br \/>\nthe plaintiff.     Similarly,   there   is   a     positive<br \/>\nacknowledgment     in    the    rent    note      by    the<br \/>\npredecessor-in-title of the defendant that the door which<br \/>\nopens in the terrace shall be kept in lock and key by the<br \/>\npredecessor-in-title of the plaintiff. Therefore, as per<br \/>\nthe evidence which has come on record          it    stands<br \/>\nestablished that the terrace over the shop premises did<br \/>\nnot form part of the rented premise, and on this count,<br \/>\nno error can be said to have been committed by either of<br \/>\nthe lower Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.As regards illegal construction, a show-cause<br \/>\nnotice dated 06.12.1997 issued by the Jamnagar Municipal<br \/>\nCorporation directing the plaintiff as the owner and the<br \/>\ndefendant as the occupier to remove illegal construction<br \/>\nis absolutely clear and shows that no construction<br \/>\nexisted prior in point of time as canvassed by the<br \/>\ndefendant. Thus, the appellate Court and the trial Court<br \/>\nhave appreciated the evidence and facts on record and<br \/>\nthere is no infirmity in their approach which would<br \/>\npermit this Court to entertain this second appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.The position of law is well settled that if in<br \/>\nlight of evidence which has come on record and the<br \/>\nfindings of fact recorded by the Court below, even though<br \/>\nthe High Court may be in a position to take another view<br \/>\nin the same set of facts and circumstances, that would<br \/>\nnot be sufficient for interfering       with   concurrent<br \/>\nfindings of fact so as to entertain the Second Appeal.<br \/>\nIt is also well settled that, assuming a question of law<br \/>\narises, merely because a question of law arises, that by<br \/>\nitself would not be sufficient, as what is necessary is<br \/>\nthat there should be a substantial question of law which<br \/>\nshould arise from the judgment so as to require admission<br \/>\nof Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil<br \/>\nProcedure. It is well settled position of law that it is<br \/>\nnot open to this Court to go behind findings of fact<br \/>\n recorded by the First Appellate Court unless and until it<br \/>\nis shown that the Appellate Court has either taken into<br \/>\nconsideration irrelevant evidence, or ignored relevant<br \/>\nevidence. In the present case no such situation exists.<br \/>\nHaving considered the various contentions raised and the<br \/>\ndecisions cited it is apparent that, even if it could be<br \/>\nstated for the sake of argument, that a question of law<br \/>\nwould arise on any of the points canvassed by the learned<br \/>\nAdvocate, that by itself is not sufficient to permit this<br \/>\nCourt to exercise its jurisdiction in relation to Second<br \/>\nAppeal.   Merely because a question of law can be said to<br \/>\narise it would not be sufficient as what is necessary is<br \/>\nthat a substantial question of law should arise out of<br \/>\nthe impugned judgment. In light of the settled legal<br \/>\nposition stated hereinbefore no substantial question of<br \/>\nlaw can be said to arise out of the impugned judgment,<br \/>\nmore so in light of the fact that there are concurrent<br \/>\nfindings of fact recorded by both the Courts below after<br \/>\nappreciation of evidence on record.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.This second appeal, therefore, being devoid of<br \/>\nmerits is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.<br \/>\nDismissed accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>CIVIL APPLICATION No.6057 of 2002<\/p>\n<p>1.In light of the order passed in Second Appeal<br \/>\nNo.123 of 2002, this application has become infructuous<br \/>\nand does not survive, and hence, the same is disposed off<br \/>\naccordingly.   Ad-interim relief granted earlier stands<br \/>\nvacated.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.At this stage a request is made by Mr.Thakkar on<br \/>\nbehalf of the appellant that the appellant &#8211; defendant be<br \/>\npermitted to occupy the premises and status-quo may be<br \/>\nmaintained for a period of three months from today, since<br \/>\nthere is vacation in the Supreme Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.This request does not require to be granted for<br \/>\nthe simple reason that on 18.07.1998 an order below Exh.5<br \/>\nin Regular Civil Suit No.233 of 1998 came to be made<br \/>\nwhich reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8221; ORDER<\/p>\n<p> Application   of   plaintiffs   is   hereby<br \/>\n        allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p> Defendant is hereby directed not to use<br \/>\n        portion of terrace etc.      and also directed to<br \/>\n        pull down wall and bathroom and make terrace open<br \/>\n               within one month from this order.\n<\/p>\n<p>       Defendant is hereby ordered to pay costs<br \/>\n              of this application to the plffs.\n<\/p>\n<p>       Pronounced today in open   court   on   this<br \/>\n              18th July, 98.\n<\/p>\n<p>      dt.18.7.98.\n<\/p>\n<p>(V. M. NAYAK)<br \/>\n      4th Jt. Civil Judge, SD,<br \/>\n      Jamnagar.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>      4.Therefore, when there was a prima face case and<br \/>\n      the balance of convenience did not operate in favour of<br \/>\n      the defendant even at the initial stage it is not<br \/>\n      possible to continue the ad-interim relief granted when<br \/>\n      notice was issued in the present appeal and, therefore,<br \/>\n      the prayer made by Mr.Thakkar is rejected.<br \/>\n      Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>      [ D.A.MEHTA, J ]<\/p>\n<p>       * * *<br \/>\n      &#8216;Bhavesh&#8217;\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Second Appeal No. 123 Of 2002 vs Mr Hasit H Joshi For on 25 April, 2011 Author: D.A.Mehta,&amp;Nbsp; IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SECOND APPEAL No 123 of 2002 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION No.6057 of 2002 &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211; HEIR OF NATHUBHAI MULUBHAI KESHOR Versus RATANBEN CHHOTALAL MODH D\/O BHANJIBHAI VAKABHAI &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211; [&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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-246118","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Second Appeal No. 123 Of 2002 vs Mr Hasit H Joshi For on 25 April, 2011 - 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\/second-appeal-no-123-of-2002-vs-mr-hasit-h-joshi-for-on-25-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Second Appeal No. 123 Of 2002 vs Mr Hasit H Joshi For on 25 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-123-of-2002-vs-mr-hasit-h-joshi-for-on-25-april-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-04-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-22T11:34:42+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\\\/second-appeal-no-123-of-2002-vs-mr-hasit-h-joshi-for-on-25-april-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/second-appeal-no-123-of-2002-vs-mr-hasit-h-joshi-for-on-25-april-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Second Appeal No. 123 Of 2002 vs Mr Hasit H Joshi For on 25 April, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-22T11:34:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/second-appeal-no-123-of-2002-vs-mr-hasit-h-joshi-for-on-25-april-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1599,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/second-appeal-no-123-of-2002-vs-mr-hasit-h-joshi-for-on-25-april-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/second-appeal-no-123-of-2002-vs-mr-hasit-h-joshi-for-on-25-april-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/second-appeal-no-123-of-2002-vs-mr-hasit-h-joshi-for-on-25-april-2011\",\"name\":\"Second Appeal No. 123 Of 2002 vs Mr Hasit H Joshi For on 25 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-22T11:34:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/second-appeal-no-123-of-2002-vs-mr-hasit-h-joshi-for-on-25-april-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/second-appeal-no-123-of-2002-vs-mr-hasit-h-joshi-for-on-25-april-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/second-appeal-no-123-of-2002-vs-mr-hasit-h-joshi-for-on-25-april-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Second Appeal No. 123 Of 2002 vs Mr Hasit H Joshi For on 25 April, 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":"Second Appeal No. 123 Of 2002 vs Mr Hasit H Joshi For on 25 April, 2011 - 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\/second-appeal-no-123-of-2002-vs-mr-hasit-h-joshi-for-on-25-april-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Second Appeal No. 123 Of 2002 vs Mr Hasit H Joshi For on 25 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-123-of-2002-vs-mr-hasit-h-joshi-for-on-25-april-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-04-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-22T11:34:42+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\/second-appeal-no-123-of-2002-vs-mr-hasit-h-joshi-for-on-25-april-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-123-of-2002-vs-mr-hasit-h-joshi-for-on-25-april-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Second Appeal No. 123 Of 2002 vs Mr Hasit H Joshi For on 25 April, 2011","datePublished":"2011-04-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-22T11:34:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-123-of-2002-vs-mr-hasit-h-joshi-for-on-25-april-2011"},"wordCount":1599,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-123-of-2002-vs-mr-hasit-h-joshi-for-on-25-april-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-123-of-2002-vs-mr-hasit-h-joshi-for-on-25-april-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-123-of-2002-vs-mr-hasit-h-joshi-for-on-25-april-2011","name":"Second Appeal No. 123 Of 2002 vs Mr Hasit H Joshi For on 25 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-04-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-22T11:34:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-123-of-2002-vs-mr-hasit-h-joshi-for-on-25-april-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-123-of-2002-vs-mr-hasit-h-joshi-for-on-25-april-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-123-of-2002-vs-mr-hasit-h-joshi-for-on-25-april-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Second Appeal No. 123 Of 2002 vs Mr Hasit H Joshi For on 25 April, 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\/246118","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=246118"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/246118\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=246118"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=246118"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=246118"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}