{"id":251733,"date":"2008-10-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/leelavantiben-vs-prakashbhai-on-7-october-2008"},"modified":"2016-06-11T18:40:36","modified_gmt":"2016-06-11T13:10:36","slug":"leelavantiben-vs-prakashbhai-on-7-october-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/leelavantiben-vs-prakashbhai-on-7-october-2008","title":{"rendered":"Leelavantiben vs Prakashbhai on 7 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Leelavantiben vs Prakashbhai on 7 October, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M.R. Shah,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/11749\/2008\t 13\/ 13\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 11749 of 2008\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH\n \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\t                 YES\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 be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?   YES\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\t                  NO\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 ?                               NO\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\t             NO\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nLEELAVANTIBEN\nMOHANBHAI DABHI - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nPRAKASHBHAI\nNATHABHAI SONAGARA &amp; 2 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nYM THAKKAR for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nMS SEJAL K MANDAVIA for Respondent(s) : 1, \nNone\nfor Respondent(s) : 2 -\n3. \n=========================================================\n\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 M.R. SHAH\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 07\/10\/2008 \n\n \n\n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">Rule.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">\tMs.Sejak K.Mandavia, learned advocate waives the service of notice<br \/>\n\tof rule on behalf of the   respondent No.1.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">With<br \/>\n\tthe consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the<br \/>\n\trespective parties, present petition is taken up for final hearing<br \/>\n\ttoday.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">Present<br \/>\n\tpetition is filed by the petitioner ?  original objector, under<br \/>\n\t<a href=\"\/doc\/1331149\/\" id=\"a_1\">Article  227<\/a> of the Constitution of India for appropriate   order,<br \/>\n\torder and\/or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order<br \/>\n\tdtd.7\/8\/2008 passed by the learned 4th Additional Senior<br \/>\n\tCivil Judge, Junagadh below application Ex.5 in Special Execution<br \/>\n\tPetition No.3 of 2006 as well as order dtd.19\/3\/2008 passed by the<br \/>\n\tlearned Additional District Judge and Presiding Officer, FTC No.5,<br \/>\n\tJunagadh in Civil Misc.Appeal No.73 of 2007.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">Facts<br \/>\n\tleading to the present Special Civil Application, in nutshell, are<br \/>\n\tthat the petitioner  and the respondent No.2 are husband and wife<br \/>\n\tand their marriage was solemnised in the year 1987 and out of the<br \/>\n\twedlock, they have two children. The petitioner and the children are<br \/>\n\tin possession of the suit property i.e. residential house. The<br \/>\n\trespondent No.2 was serving as a teacher and he obtained Housing<br \/>\n\tLoan. As per the petitioner, the loan installments were  paid from<br \/>\n\ttheir joint salary  of the petitioner and the respondent No.1 as per<br \/>\n\ttheir mutual understanding. As per the petitioner, after a period of<br \/>\n\tabout one year, the respondent No.2 ?  husband deliberately did not<br \/>\n\tpay the installments towards housing loan only with a view to render<br \/>\n\tthe petitioner and two children homelss. According to the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner, she managed to pay few  installments but thereafter she<br \/>\n\tcould not continue to pay the loan installments and as the loan<br \/>\n\tinstallments were not paid, the respondent No.3 ?  State Bank of<br \/>\n\tIndia filed a suit for recovery of due amount being Special Civil<br \/>\n\tSuit No.  34 of 2005, wherein the petitioner was not joined as party<br \/>\n\tdefendant and the respondent No.2 in the said suit, on the first<br \/>\n\tdate of hearing, admitted the liability and accordingly, consent<br \/>\n\tdecree was drawn on 15\/6\/2005. The respondent No.2 husband also<br \/>\n\tfiled a purshish declaring that the decretal amount to the tune of<br \/>\n\tRs.3,14,059=00  should be recovered from the residential house<br \/>\n\toccupied by the petitioner and two children. That the respondent<br \/>\n\tNo.3 Bank ?  decree holder  initiated execution proceedings by way<br \/>\n\tof filing Special Execution Petition No.3 of 2006 before the learned<br \/>\n\tCivil Judge, Junagadh and the learned 4th Additional<br \/>\n\tSenior Civil Judge vide order dtd.10\/10\/2006 directed to realise the<br \/>\n\tdecretal amount by selling the residential  house occupied by the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner and her two children by way of public auction and<br \/>\n\taccordingly,  the house occupied by the petitioner and two children<br \/>\n\twas auctioned and the same has been purchased by the respondent<br \/>\n\tNo.1, who is cousin of the<br \/>\n\trespondent No.2, on 23\/3\/2007. The auction purchaser &#8211; respondent<br \/>\n\tNo.1 had moved application Ex.33 for delivery of possession of the<br \/>\n\tauctioned  property occupied by the petitioner. The petitioner filed<br \/>\n\ther objection vide Ex.38 on 24\/7\/2007 contending that the petitioner<br \/>\n\tis in occupation of the property in question and the said fact was<br \/>\n\twithin the knowledge of the respondent Nos.1 and 2, however the said<br \/>\n\tproperty was allowed to be auctioned and that the petitioner and two<br \/>\n\tchildren have right, title and interest  in the property and<br \/>\n\ttherefore, the auction purchaser ought to have moved an application<br \/>\n\tunder Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure  instead of<br \/>\n\tfiling application under Order 21 Rule 95 of the Code of Civil<br \/>\n\tProcedure. The learned 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge,<br \/>\n\tJungadh allowed the application made under Order 21 Rule 95 of the<br \/>\n\tCode of Civil Procedure,  vide order dtd.20\/9\/2007, directing the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner to hand over the possession of the residential premises<br \/>\n\tto the auction purchaser ?  respondent No.1. Being aggrieved by and<br \/>\n\tdissatisfied with the order dtd.20\/9\/2007 passed by the Executing<br \/>\n\tCourt below Ex.1 in Execution Petition No.3 of 2006, the petitioner<br \/>\n\tpreferred Civil Misc.Appeal No.73 of 2007 before the District Court,<br \/>\n\tJunagadh. The respondent No.1 auction purchaser moved an application<br \/>\n\tEx.42 under Order 21 Rule 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure  with a<br \/>\n\tprayer to send the petitioner in Civil Prison as she has not handed<br \/>\n\tover the possession, against which the petitioner filed her<br \/>\n\tobjection vide Ex.48 on 9\/4\/2008  which is pending.  That the<br \/>\n\tlearned Additional District Judge and Presiding Officer, FTC No.5,<br \/>\n\tJunagadh rejected the Civil Appeal No.73 of 2007 vide judgement and<br \/>\n\torder dtd.19\/3\/2008 mainly on the ground that since the petitioner<br \/>\n\twas not party to the suit and the execution proceedings,  the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner has no right  to prefer the appeal and the petitioner was<br \/>\n\tnot the decree holder and therefore, Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of<br \/>\n\tCivil Procedure  is not attracted. It appears that the petitioner<br \/>\n\talso filed  application Ex.49 inter-alia contending that before<br \/>\n\thearing of application under Order 21 Rule 98 of the Code of Civil<br \/>\n\tProcedure, since no order is passed under Order 21 Rule 92 of the<br \/>\n\tCode of Civil Procedure, the auction purchaser does not become owner<br \/>\n\tand therefore, before deciding the application under Order 21 Rule<br \/>\n\t98 of the Code of Civil Procedure, objection raised by the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner may be decided. However,  the learned 4th<br \/>\n\tAdditional Senior Civil Judge  by the impugned order rejected the<br \/>\n\tapplication Ex.49 and hence the petitioner objector has preferred<br \/>\n\tpresent Special Civil Application under <a href=\"\/doc\/1331149\/\" id=\"a_1\">Article 227<\/a> of the<br \/>\n\tConstitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">Mr.Yogesh<br \/>\n\tThakkar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner  ?<br \/>\n\tobjector has submitted that the trial court has erred in not<br \/>\n\tappreciating the fact that since the petitioner and her two children<br \/>\n\tare occupying the  residential house, application preferred by the<br \/>\n\trespondent No.1 under Order 21 Rule 95 of the Code of Civil<br \/>\n\tProcedure  is not tenable and order dtd.20\/9\/2007 passed by the<br \/>\n\texecuting court below application Ex.33 directing the petitioner to<br \/>\n\thand over the possession to the respondent No.1 was illegal, unjust<br \/>\n\tand contrary to law and consequently, the order passed in appeal<br \/>\n\tdeserves to be quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">It<br \/>\n\tis submitted that, as such, the respondent No.1 could not have given<br \/>\n\tthe symbolic possession as per Order 21 Rule 96 of the Code of Civil<br \/>\n\tProcedure, as the petitioner and her two children are in occupation<br \/>\n\tand possession of the suit property. It is further submitted that<br \/>\n\twhen the petitioner had raised objections, the same are required to<br \/>\n\tbe decided and adjudicated by the Court  as per Order 21 Rule 97 of<br \/>\n\tthe Code of Civil Procedure and the learned executing court has<br \/>\n\tcommitted an error in not adjudicating the objections raised by the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure<br \/>\n\tand has erred in allowing the application  Ex.49. Submitting<br \/>\n\taccordingly it is requested to allow the present Special Civil<br \/>\n\tApplication.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">Present<br \/>\n\tpetition is opposed by Ms.Sejal Mandavia, learned advocate appearing<br \/>\n\ton behalf of the  respondent No.1. It is submitted that as the<br \/>\n\tproperty  has been purchased by the respondent No.1, the remedy<br \/>\n\tavailable to the auction purchaser is Order 21 Rule 95 of the Code<br \/>\n\tof Civil Procedure   and Order 21 Rule 97  of the Code of Civil<br \/>\n\tProcedure  would not be applicable. It is submitted that even the<br \/>\n\tobjections submitted  by the petitioner could not have been<br \/>\n\tconsidered and\/or adjudicated upon under Order 21 Rule 97 of the<br \/>\n\tCode of Civil Procedure,  as application Order 21 Rule 97 of the<br \/>\n\tCode of Civil Procedure  would be maintainable only if the same is<br \/>\n\tby decree holder and\/or purchaser. It is submitted that  after the<br \/>\n\torder was passed by the learned executing court in an application<br \/>\n\tunder Order 21 Rule 95 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner did not hand over the possession and thereafter when the<br \/>\n\trespondent No.1 submitted application for delivery of the property,<br \/>\n\tunder Order 21 Rule 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure  and when the<br \/>\n\torder has been passed by the trial court below application Ex.49,<br \/>\n\tthe same cannot be said to be illegal and\/or contrary to the<br \/>\n\tprovisions of Order 21 Rule 95 of the Code of Civil Procedure.<br \/>\n\tSubmitting accordingly it is requested to dismiss the present<br \/>\n\tSpecial Civil Application.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">The<br \/>\n\tlearned advocate appearing on behalf of the  respondent No.1 has<br \/>\n\trelied upon the decision in the case of  Chandravati<br \/>\n\tCo.Op.Housing Society Ltd., Maninagar Vs. Bhairavnath Education &amp;<br \/>\n\tCultural Society Trust &amp; Ors., reported in 1993<br \/>\n\t(1) GLR 116  in support of her submission that the<br \/>\n\tapplication under Order 21 Rule 97  Code of Civil Procedure  at the<br \/>\n\tinstance of the petitioner was not maintainable.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">Heard<br \/>\n\tthe learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">At<br \/>\n\tthe outset it is required to be noted that the respondent No.1<br \/>\n\therein is the auction purchaser of the property in question. The<br \/>\n\tdisputed property in question is in occupation and possession  of<br \/>\n\tthe petitioner and her two children. The execution petition came to<br \/>\n\tbe submitted by the respondent No.1 ?  auction purchaser and in the<br \/>\n\tsaid proceedings, the petitioner has submitted objections.<br \/>\n\tConsidering the provisions of Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil<br \/>\n\tProcedure, where holder of a decree for the possession of immovable<br \/>\n\tproperty or purchaser of any  such property sold in execution of a<br \/>\n\tdecree is  resisted or<br \/>\n\tobstructed by any person in obtaining possession of the property, he<br \/>\n\tmay make an application to the court complaining of such resistance<br \/>\n\tor obstruction and as per sub rule 2  of Order 21 Rule 97 of the<br \/>\n\tCode of Civil Procedure, where any application is made sub rule 1,<br \/>\n\tCourt shall proceed to adjudicate the application. As per order 21<br \/>\n\tRule 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the said objections are<br \/>\n\trequired to be dealt with and adjudicated upon considering the Order<br \/>\n\t21 Rule 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure  and therefore,<br \/>\n\tconsidering the above, when the petitioner resisted the execution by<br \/>\n\tsubmitting the objections, the said objections are required to be<br \/>\n\tdealt with under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure.<br \/>\n\tNow, considering the Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure<br \/>\n\t, decree holder and\/or purchaser has to submit an application to the<br \/>\n\tCourt complaining of resistance or obstruction in enjoying the<br \/>\n\tpossession. As held by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the<br \/>\n\tcase of Chandravati Co.Op.Housing Society Ltd., Maninagar<br \/>\n\t(supra) any application made by the person other than decree holder<br \/>\n\tand\/or purchaser under Order 21 Rule 97 is not maintainable. Now the<br \/>\n\tquestion is when the decree is  resisted and obstructions are raised<br \/>\n\tin the execution, what will happen when the decree holder and\/or<br \/>\n\tpurchaser do not submit any application to the Court complaining of<br \/>\n\tsuch obstruction or resistance as contemplated under Order 21 Rule<br \/>\n\t97 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In such a situation when the<br \/>\n\tdecree is resisted and obstructions are raised in the execution,<br \/>\n\tunless and until the objections are decided and\/or adjudicated upon,<br \/>\n\tthe executing court cannot pass any order directing obstructer<br \/>\n\tand\/or occupier to hand over the possession, otherwise, Order 21<br \/>\n\tRule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure  would become nugatory. On<br \/>\n\tthe one hand, considering Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil<br \/>\n\tProcedure  only decree holder or purchaser can submit the<br \/>\n\tapplication and when the decree holder or purchaser do not submit<br \/>\n\tthe application  and some third party submits the application under<br \/>\n\tOrder 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is said that the<br \/>\n\tsame is not maintainable, under the circumstances, the objector<br \/>\n\twould have no remedy. Such an interpretation would make Order 21<br \/>\n\tRule 97 nugatory. Under the circumstances, it is to be held that<br \/>\n\twhen the decree is resisted and objections are raised, decree holder<br \/>\n\tor purchaser has to submit the application for removing the<br \/>\n\tobstructions as contemplated under Order 21 Rule 97  of  the Code of<br \/>\n\tCivil Procedure,  and until then the executing court cannot pass any<br \/>\n\torder delivering the possession and   the executing court has to<br \/>\n\tadjudicate upon the objections submitted by the objector before<br \/>\n\tdirecting to hand over the possession.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">Realising<br \/>\n\tthe above position of law, Ms.Sejal Mandavia,<br \/>\n\tlearned advocate appearing on behalf of the  respondent No.1 has<br \/>\n\tsubmitted that the respondent No.1 would make an appropriate<br \/>\n\tapplication before the executing court as contemplated under Order<br \/>\n\t21 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure  complaining of resistance<br \/>\n\tor obstructions  by the petitioner and it is requested that the<br \/>\n\tlearned executing court be directed to decided and disposed of the<br \/>\n\tsame at the earliest.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">Considering<br \/>\n\tthe above provisions of law and the discussion made hereinabove, the<br \/>\n\timpugned orders passed by the  executing court deserves to be<br \/>\n\tquashed and set aside and the learned executing court is to be<br \/>\n\tdirected to decide and dispose of the application to be submitted by<br \/>\n\tthe respondent No.1 under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil<br \/>\n\tProcedure  and adjudicate the objections submitted by the petitioner<br \/>\n\tin light of the  Order 21 Rules 98, 100, 101 of the Code of Civil<br \/>\n\tProcedure.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">For<br \/>\n\tthe reasons stated above, the impugned  order dtd.7\/8\/2008 passed by<br \/>\n\tthe learned 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Junagadh<br \/>\n\tbelow application Ex.5 in Special Execution Petition No.3 of 2006 as<br \/>\n\twell as order dtd.19\/3\/2008 passed by the learned Additional<br \/>\n\tDistrict Judge and Presiding Officer, FTC No.5, Junagadh in Civil<br \/>\n\tMisc.Appeal No.73 of 2007, are hereby quashed and set aside and as<br \/>\n\tsubmitted by Ms.Mandavia,<br \/>\n\tlearned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1,  let<br \/>\n\tthe respondent No.1 submit appropriate application under Order 21<br \/>\n\tRule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure complaining of resistance and<br \/>\n\t obstruction by the petitioner and as and when such an application<br \/>\n\tis submitted by the respondent No.1, the executing Court shall<br \/>\n\tdecide and dispose of the same at the earliest but not later than<br \/>\n\tthree months from the date of receipt of such application and shall<br \/>\n\tconsider and adjudicate  upon the objections   considering Order 21<br \/>\n\tRule 97, 98, 100 and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure  and shall<br \/>\n\tpass appropriate order  in accordance  with law and on merits. Rule<br \/>\n\tis mad absolute  to the aforesaid extent. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">rafik\t\t\t\t\t\t\t[M.R.\nSHAH, J.]\n\n    \n\n \n\t   \n      \n      \n\t    \n\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n\t   \n      \n\t  \t    \n\t\t   Top\n\t   \n      \n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Leelavantiben vs Prakashbhai on 7 October, 2008 Author: M.R. Shah,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/11749\/2008 13\/ 13 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11749 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may [&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-251733","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>Leelavantiben vs Prakashbhai on 7 October, 2008 - 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\/leelavantiben-vs-prakashbhai-on-7-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Leelavantiben vs Prakashbhai on 7 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/leelavantiben-vs-prakashbhai-on-7-october-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-11T13:10:36+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/leelavantiben-vs-prakashbhai-on-7-october-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/leelavantiben-vs-prakashbhai-on-7-october-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Leelavantiben vs Prakashbhai on 7 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-11T13:10:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/leelavantiben-vs-prakashbhai-on-7-october-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2275,\"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\/leelavantiben-vs-prakashbhai-on-7-october-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/leelavantiben-vs-prakashbhai-on-7-october-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/leelavantiben-vs-prakashbhai-on-7-october-2008\",\"name\":\"Leelavantiben vs Prakashbhai on 7 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-11T13:10:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/leelavantiben-vs-prakashbhai-on-7-october-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/leelavantiben-vs-prakashbhai-on-7-october-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/leelavantiben-vs-prakashbhai-on-7-october-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Leelavantiben vs Prakashbhai on 7 October, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Leelavantiben vs Prakashbhai on 7 October, 2008 - 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\/leelavantiben-vs-prakashbhai-on-7-october-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Leelavantiben vs Prakashbhai on 7 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/leelavantiben-vs-prakashbhai-on-7-october-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-11T13:10:36+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/leelavantiben-vs-prakashbhai-on-7-october-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/leelavantiben-vs-prakashbhai-on-7-october-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Leelavantiben vs Prakashbhai on 7 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-11T13:10:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/leelavantiben-vs-prakashbhai-on-7-october-2008"},"wordCount":2275,"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\/leelavantiben-vs-prakashbhai-on-7-october-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/leelavantiben-vs-prakashbhai-on-7-october-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/leelavantiben-vs-prakashbhai-on-7-october-2008","name":"Leelavantiben vs Prakashbhai on 7 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-11T13:10:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/leelavantiben-vs-prakashbhai-on-7-october-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/leelavantiben-vs-prakashbhai-on-7-october-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/leelavantiben-vs-prakashbhai-on-7-october-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Leelavantiben vs Prakashbhai on 7 October, 2008"}]},{"@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\/251733","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=251733"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/251733\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=251733"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=251733"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=251733"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}