{"id":247978,"date":"2011-07-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-07-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preeta-vs-mahesh-on-13-july-2011"},"modified":"2018-07-30T14:16:55","modified_gmt":"2018-07-30T08:46:55","slug":"preeta-vs-mahesh-on-13-july-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preeta-vs-mahesh-on-13-july-2011","title":{"rendered":"Preeta vs Mahesh on 13 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Preeta vs Mahesh on 13 July, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: V. M. G.B.Shah,<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">  \n Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n    \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nLPA\/2394\/2010\t 8\/ 8\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nLETTERS\nPATENT APPEAL No. 2394 of 2010\n \n\nIn\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 13510 of 2008\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION No. 12480 of 2010\n \n\nIn\nLETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 2394 of 2010\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI \n\n \n\n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH\n \n=================================================\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=================================================\n \n\nPREETA\nFRANCIS - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nMAHESH\nJETHNAND MULCHANDANI &amp; 3 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n================================================= \nAppearance\n: \nMR RJ OZA for Appellant(s) :\n1, \nRULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2, 4, \nMR TR MISHRA for\nRespondent(s) : 1, \nMR DHAVAL D VYAS for Respondent(s) :\n3, \n=================================================\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n\t\t\t\t\n Date : 25\/04\/2011 \n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">(Per<br \/>\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI)<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">1.\t\tWe have heard Mr R.J.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">Oza, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr T.R. Mishra, learned<br \/>\ncounsel for respondents No.1 and 2 and Mr Dhaval Vyas, learned<br \/>\ncounsel for respondent No.3.  This intra court Letters Patent Appeal<br \/>\nhas been filed challenging the judgment of learned Single Judge dated<br \/>\n30.09.2010 passed in Special Civil Application No.13510 of 2008 by<br \/>\nwhich the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition partly and<br \/>\nset aside the order passed by the respondent No. 3 Kandla Port Trust<br \/>\ndated 19.8.2008 appointing the present appellant on permanent basis<br \/>\non the post of Junior Clerk\/Typist. However, the learned Single Judge<br \/>\nhas directed that the case of the appellant was required to be<br \/>\nconsidered as per seniority of Messengers by the Kandla Port Trust in<br \/>\naccordance with law.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">2.\t\t The learned counsel for<br \/>\nthe appellant has urged that the appellant has been appointed by way<br \/>\nof direct recruitment as clerk, therefore, the seniority list of<br \/>\nMessengers was not relevant to his case.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">3.\t\tIt is always open to a<br \/>\nclass IV employee\/messenger to appear in any written examination or<br \/>\ninterview for direct appointment and once he is appointed after<br \/>\nfollowing the procedure prescribed by law, he has a right to the<br \/>\npost. From the order of the learned Single Judge, it is clear that<br \/>\nthe appointment was given to the appellant as Messenger on<br \/>\ncompassionate ground. Thereafter, without inviting applications by<br \/>\nadvertisement in the newspapers appointment of the appellant by way<br \/>\nof direct recruitment has been made by the respondents de hors<br \/>\nthe Rules without following any procedure prescribed by law.  The<br \/>\nfindings recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned<br \/>\njudgment from paras 8 to 12 is extracted as under:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\"> &#8220;8.\tHeard<br \/>\nlearned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at<br \/>\nlength.  At the outset, it is required to be noted that initially<br \/>\nrespondent No.2 was appointed as a Messenger &#8211; Class IV<br \/>\nemployee on compassionate ground in the year 2001 and as per the<br \/>\nrules and regulations, she came to be confirmed\/her services were<br \/>\nregularized as Messenger.  That thereafter, without following any<br \/>\nprocedure and\/or even interview, respondent No.2 was appointed in the<br \/>\nyear 2002 as Junior Clerk\/Typist &#8211; Class III employee on purely<br \/>\nadhoc basis for temporary period of 85\/90 days with a specific<br \/>\ncondition that on the basis of the said order, she cannot claim any<br \/>\nregular appointment.  The appointment came to be extended from time<br \/>\nto time.  It appears that thereafter, number of representations were<br \/>\nmade and considering the same, respondent No.2 came to be reverted<br \/>\nand the Union raised industrial dispute against the said reversion<br \/>\nand it was sought to be contended on behalf of the Union that<br \/>\npursuant to the circular dated 30.07.2002, respondent No.2 submitted<br \/>\nthe application and her case was considered.  Considering the<br \/>\nproceedings before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), it<br \/>\nappears that the stand of respondent No.1 was just contrary to their<br \/>\nstand in the present petition.  It was specifically the case on<br \/>\nbehalf of respondent No.1 before the Assistant Labour Commissioner<br \/>\n(Central) that the contention of the Union that circular inviting<br \/>\napplication from the employees<br \/>\nwas issued, is not correct.  It was also the case on behalf of<br \/>\nrespondent No.1 that &#8220;on the basis of details furnished by the<br \/>\nDeputy Conservator, respondent No.2 &#8211; Kumari<br \/>\nPreeta Francis was appointed as Junior Clerk\/Typist on<br \/>\nadhoc basis on fix pay for a period of 90 days by order<br \/>\nNo.GA\/PS\/1403\/330dated 13.09.2002 and the said appointment was made<br \/>\nwithout interview and on a fixed pay and further on the condition<br \/>\nthat the same does not confer any right for regular appointment.<br \/>\nKumari Preeta Francis accepted the above appointment on the above<br \/>\nterms and the said appointment was extended for further period by the<br \/>\ndepartment concerned&#8221;.  It was also the specific case on behalf<br \/>\nof respondent No.1 before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)<br \/>\nthat &#8220;in the case of Ms. Preeta Francis, she was regularized<br \/>\ninitially on the post of Messenger in the month of December 2001,<br \/>\nbeing a compassionate appointee and at that time she was not a<br \/>\ngraduate.  Since she was confirmed in the post Class IV i.e.<br \/>\nMessenger, her status of compassionate appointee to get preference to<br \/>\ngo to higher post after obtaining graduate ceased to exist and she<br \/>\nwill come on common pool of Messenger alongwith other departmental<br \/>\ncandidates for the purpose of promotion and for this reason, she was<br \/>\nnot regularized in the post of Junior Clerk.&#8221;  Despite the<br \/>\nabove, some settlement took place between the Union and the<br \/>\nManagement before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)<br \/>\ncollusively and thereafter, the impugned order came to be passed, the<br \/>\nsettlement cannot bind the petitioners, as they were not party to the<br \/>\nproceedings before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central).  Even<br \/>\notherwise, on the basis of such a<br \/>\nsettlement, respondent No.2 cannot be appointed on the post of Junior<br \/>\nClerk\/Typist, which otherwise she is not entitled to.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">9.\tConsidering<br \/>\nthe case on behalf of the respondents, it appears that according to<br \/>\nrespondents, it is neither the case of direct recruitment to the post<br \/>\nof Junior Clerk\/Typist nor it is a case of promotion within 10%<br \/>\nquota.  According to the respondents, she is appointed on<br \/>\ncompassionate ground on the post of Junior Clerk\/Typist.  Once,<br \/>\nrespondent No.2 was appointed as a Messenger on compassionate ground,<br \/>\nconsidering her qualification at the relevant time (at the relevant<br \/>\ntime, respondent No.2 was not graduate, which was required for the<br \/>\npost of Class III) and when her services came to be regularized as<br \/>\nMessenger, there is no question of again appointing respondent No.2<br \/>\nas Junior Clerk\/Typist on compassionate ground.  The aforesaid is<br \/>\nabsolutely illegal and contrary to the policy and rules &amp;<br \/>\nregulations of respondent No.1.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">10.\tIt<br \/>\nappears that respondent No.1 has tried to change their stand from<br \/>\ntime to time.  It is to be noted that after respondent No.2 was<br \/>\nappointed as Messenger on compassionate ground in the year 2001,<br \/>\nthereafter, respondent No.2 came to be appointed as Class III &#8211;<br \/>\nJunior Clerk\/Typist on purely adhoc and temporary basis for 85\/90<br \/>\ndays and on certain terms and conditions and one of the condition is<br \/>\nthat on the basis of such order, she will not claim any appointment<br \/>\non regular basis.  The said order came to be accepted by her.  That<br \/>\nthe said period of appointment came to be extended from time to time<br \/>\nand thereafter all of a sudden, under the guise of some settlement<br \/>\nbetween the Union and the Management before the Assistant Labour<br \/>\nCommissioner (Central), the impugned order came to be passed.  It is<br \/>\nan admitted position that at the relevant time, when respondent No.2<br \/>\nwas appointed as adhoc on Class III post, no selection procedure was<br \/>\nfollowed and even interviews were also not taken.  It is to be noted<br \/>\nthat it is the specific case on behalf of the respondents that<br \/>\nappointment of respondent No.2 is neither as a direct recruitment nor<br \/>\nby way of promotion.  Under the circumstances, the impugned order<br \/>\npassed by respondent No.1 appointing respondent No.2 on permanent<br \/>\npost as Junior Clerk\/Typist in the pay scale of<br \/>\nRs.4300-120-5260-130-8120, is absolutely illegal and arbitrary, which<br \/>\ncannot be sustained and which deserves to be quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">11.\tNow,<br \/>\nso far as the second prayer of the petitioners to promote the<br \/>\npetitioners on the post of Junior Clerk\/Typist is concerned, the same<br \/>\nis required to be considered by respondent No.1, after following due<br \/>\nprocedure and as per the rules &amp; regulations for which<br \/>\nstraightway no order can be passed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">12.\tIn<br \/>\nview of the above and for the reasons stated above, petition succeeds<br \/>\nin part.  The impugned order passed by respondent No.1 dated<br \/>\n19.08.2008 appointing respondent No.2 on permanent basis on the post<br \/>\nof Junior Clerk\/Typist in the pay scale of Rs.4300-120-5260-130-8120,<br \/>\nis hereby quashed and set aside and her case is required to be<br \/>\nconsidered along with other Messengers as per the seniority list of<br \/>\nthe Messengers.  So far as the prayer of the petitioners to direct<br \/>\nrespondent No.1 to promote them as Junior Clerk\/Typist by way of<br \/>\npromotion is concerned, respondent No.1 to consider the case of the<br \/>\npetitioners and other Messengers for promotion to the post of Class<br \/>\nIII (within 10% quota) in accordance with law and after following due<br \/>\nprocedure and as per the seniority list at the earliest.  Rule is<br \/>\nmade absolute to the aforesaid extent.  No costs.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">The learned Single Judge has<br \/>\nrightly come to the conclusion that under the guise of settlement<br \/>\narrived at between the representative of the Union and the<br \/>\nManagement, the management could not appoint the appellant on the<br \/>\npost of Junior Clerk\/Typist by following the procedure prescribed by<br \/>\nlaw for direct recruitment. The appellant could not be promoted as<br \/>\nClerk\/Typist jumping the seniority list of Messengers. The appellant<br \/>\nwas appointed in view of the settlement dated 26.6.2003 entered into<br \/>\nbetween the Union and the Kandla Port Trust in the proceedings before<br \/>\nConciliation Officer under section 12 (p) of the <a href=\"\/doc\/500379\/\" id=\"a_1\">Industrial Disputes<br \/>\nAct<\/a>, 1947 illegally.  The learned Single Judge had rightly quashed<br \/>\nthe appointment of the appellant.  We do not find any illegality in<br \/>\nthe impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">3.\t\tIn the result, this<br \/>\nappeal fails and is dismissed accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">4.\t\tIn view of the order<br \/>\npassed in the Appeal, Civil Application No.12480 of 2010 does not<br \/>\nsurvive and is accordingly disposed of.  Rule is discharged. Interim<br \/>\nrelief, if any, stands vacated.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t[V<br \/>\n M SAHAI, J.]<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t[G<br \/>\nB  SHAH, J.]<\/p>\n<p>msp<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Preeta vs Mahesh on 13 July, 2011 Author: V. M. G.B.Shah, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print LPA\/2394\/2010 8\/ 8 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 2394 of 2010 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13510 of 2008 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12480 of 2010 [&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-247978","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 v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Preeta vs Mahesh on 13 July, 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\/preeta-vs-mahesh-on-13-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Preeta vs Mahesh on 13 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preeta-vs-mahesh-on-13-july-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=\"2011-07-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-30T08:46:55+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preeta-vs-mahesh-on-13-july-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preeta-vs-mahesh-on-13-july-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Preeta vs Mahesh on 13 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-30T08:46:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preeta-vs-mahesh-on-13-july-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\/preeta-vs-mahesh-on-13-july-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preeta-vs-mahesh-on-13-july-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preeta-vs-mahesh-on-13-july-2011\",\"name\":\"Preeta vs Mahesh on 13 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-30T08:46:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preeta-vs-mahesh-on-13-july-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preeta-vs-mahesh-on-13-july-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preeta-vs-mahesh-on-13-july-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Preeta vs Mahesh on 13 July, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Preeta vs Mahesh on 13 July, 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\/preeta-vs-mahesh-on-13-july-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Preeta vs Mahesh on 13 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preeta-vs-mahesh-on-13-july-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-07-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-30T08:46:55+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preeta-vs-mahesh-on-13-july-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preeta-vs-mahesh-on-13-july-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Preeta vs Mahesh on 13 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-07-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-30T08:46:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preeta-vs-mahesh-on-13-july-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\/preeta-vs-mahesh-on-13-july-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preeta-vs-mahesh-on-13-july-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preeta-vs-mahesh-on-13-july-2011","name":"Preeta vs Mahesh on 13 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-07-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-30T08:46:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preeta-vs-mahesh-on-13-july-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preeta-vs-mahesh-on-13-july-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preeta-vs-mahesh-on-13-july-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Preeta vs Mahesh on 13 July, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/247978","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=247978"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/247978\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=247978"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=247978"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=247978"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}