{"id":254209,"date":"2011-11-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-11-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-lilaben-on-11-november-2011"},"modified":"2018-09-05T03:10:02","modified_gmt":"2018-09-04T21:40:02","slug":"ahmedabad-vs-lilaben-on-11-november-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-lilaben-on-11-november-2011","title":{"rendered":"Ahmedabad vs Lilaben on 11 November, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Ahmedabad vs Lilaben on 11 November, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: M.R. Shah,<\/div>\n
  \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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/9693\/2008\t 15\/ 15\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. 9693 of 2008\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 9694 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\nAHMEDABAD\nMUNICIPAL CORPORATION - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nLILABEN\nHIRABEN - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nRM CHHAYA for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nMR MB GANDHI for Respondent(s) : 1, \nMR\nCHINMAY M GANDHI for Respondent(s) :\n1, \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: 26\/08\/2008 \n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
RULE.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.M.B. Gandhi, learned advocate waives the service of notice of
\n\tadmission on behalf of the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
With
\n\tthe consent of the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
\n\trespective parties, both these petitions are taken up for final
\n\thearing.\n<\/p>\n
As
\n\tboth these petitions arise out of the common order passed in the
\n\tapplications between the same parties, the same are being disposed
\n\tof by this Common judgement and order.\n<\/p>\n
By
\n\tway of this petition under Article 227<\/a> of the Constitution of India,
\n\tthe petitioner ?  Ahmedabad
\n\tMunicipal Corporation  has prayed for appropriate
\n\twrit, order and\/or directions, quashing and setting aside the
\n\timpugned order   dtd.11\/7\/2008 passed by the learned City Civil
\n\tJudge, Ahmedabad (Mr.J.D. Vyas) in Civil Misc.Application Nos.297
\n\tand 141 of 2008, whereby the learned Judge has ordered that the
\n\torder dtd.25\/2\/2008 passed by the Corporation be treated as
\n\tcancelled w.e.f. 26\/2\/2008 and the service of the respondent be
\n\ttreated  as continued. By the said impugned order the learned Judge
\n\talso restrained the petitioner from making any interference or
\n\tdisturbance in the  service of the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\trespondent was serving as sweeper  (Safai Kamdar) with the
\n\tpetitioner Corporation. The mother of the respondent was working as
\n\ta sweeper and she was declared unfit,  and a representation was made
\n\tby the respondent to the effect that she was the daughter of Hiraben
\n\tGendalbhai, even though she is wife of the son of Hiraben Gendalbhai
\n\tand requested to appoint her as sweeper in place of Hiraben
\n\tGendalbhai. Thus, according to the Corporation, from the very
\n\tinitiation of her service, the respondent did not disclose correct
\n\tfacts and by disclosing false relationship, obtained the job with
\n\tthe petitioner as sweeper and therefore, chargesheet was served upon
\n\tthe respondent and as per the petitioner Corporation, regular
\n\tinquiry was held and the inquiry officer after following due
\n\tprocedure of law and after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing
\n\tto the respondent, made a report  to the effect that the charges
\n\tlevelled against the respondent are proved beyond doubt. Thereafter,
\n\ta regular show cause notice dtd.9\/2\/1995 was issued to the
\n\trespondent for imposing final punishment. At that stage, the
\n\trespondent herein instituted  civil suit being Civil Suit No. 3400
\n\tof 1995 inter-alia praying for a declaration and permanent
\n\tinjunction. In the said suit, the respondent took out a notice of
\n\tmotion wherein temporary injunction was prayed for by her. The said
\n\tnotice of motion came to be disposed of by the learned City Civil
\n\tJudge holding that if any final order is passed by the petitioner
\n\tCorporation, the same shall not be implemented for a period of 15
\n\tdays. That thereafter, vide order dtd.24\/10\/2007, Civil Suit No.
\n\t3400 of 1995 came to be dismissed for default for want of
\n\tprosecution. As per the petitioner Corporation, no steps were taken
\n\tby the respondent for getting the aforesaid civil suit restored and
\n\ttherefore, vide order dtd.25\/2\/2008, the petitioner Corporation
\n\tdismissed the respondent from service. That after the service of the
\n\taforesaid order, the respondent herein original plaintiff filed
\n\tthree different applications namely Misc.Civil Application No.141 of
\n\t2008 for disobedience of the order passed on the notice of motion;
\n\tMisc.Civil Application No.142 of 2008 for condonation of delay as
\n\twell as Misc.Civil Application No.297 of 2008 for restoration of the
\n\tsuit. It was contended on behalf of the respondent that order of
\n\ttermination dtd.25\/2\/2008 is in clear breach and in violation of the
\n\torder passed below notice of motion whereby it was observed that  if
\n\tany final order is passed by the petitioner Corporation, the same
\n\tshall not be implemented for 15 days and submitting accordingly,  in
\n\tthe Misc.Civil Application No.141 of 2008,   it was requested to
\n\tquash the order of termination dtd.25\/2\/2008.  Simultaneously, in
\n\tthe Misc.Civil Application No.297 of 2008 the respondent prayed to
\n\trestore the suit and as there was delay in preferring application
\n\tfor restoration, in Misc.Civil Application No.142 of 2008,  the
\n\trespondent prayed to condone the delay in preferring restoration
\n\tapplication. While passing the impugned order below Misc.Civil
\n\tApplication No.297 and 141 of 2008, the learned  City Civil Judge
\n\tquashed and set aside the order of termination dtd.25\/2\/2008 and
\n\tordered to treat the same as cancelled w.e.f. 26\/2\/2008 by further
\n\tordering that  the service of the respondent  be treated as
\n\tcontinued and further directed the petitioner Corporation to pass
\n\tappropriate order of termination afresh and if any order is passed,
\n\tthe same shall not be implemented for a period of 15 days and
\n\tfurther restrained the petitioner Corporation from making any
\n\tinterference or disturbance in the service of the respondent and the
\n\tsame shall be continued for 15 days after service of fresh order of
\n\tpunishment that may be passed by the petitioner Corporation. Being
\n\taggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dtd.11\/7\/2008 passed by
\n\tthe learned City Civil Judge below Misc.Civil Application Nos.297
\n\tand 141 of 2008, the petitioner Corporation has preferred both these
\n\tSpecial Civil Application under Article 227<\/a> of the Constitution of
\n\tIndia.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.R.M.Chhaya,
\n\tlearned advocate appearing on behalf of the  petitioner Corporation
\n\thas vehemently submitted that the impugned order passed by the
\n\tlearned City Civil Court is absolutely illegal and arbitrary which
\n\trequires to be quashed and set aside. It is submitted that the civil
\n\tsuit is dismissed for non-prosecution and the respondent had
\n\tsubmitted Misc.Civil Application No. of 297 of 2008 for restoration
\n\tof the suit and as there was delay in preferring the restoration
\n\tapplication, the respondent had filed Misc.Civil Application No.142
\n\tof 2008 to condone the delay caused in preferring restoration
\n\tapplication and simultaneously the  respondent also submitted
\n\tMisc.Civil Application  No.141 of 2008 for disobedience of the order
\n\tpassed below notice of motion to the effect that while disposing of
\n\tthe notice of motion it was ordered that if any final order of
\n\tpunishment is passed, the same shall not be implemented for a period
\n\tof 15 days. However, without passing any order in Misc.Civil
\n\tApplication No.141 of 2008 for condonation of delay in restoration
\n\tapplication and without restoring the suit by  allowing Misc.Civil
\n\tApplication No.297 of 2008, the learned trial court passed the
\n\timpugned order,  which cannot be sustained. It is submitted that
\n\tunless  and until the  delay is condoned and the suit is restored,
\n\tsuch an order could not have been passed by the trial court,
\n\tquashing and setting aside the order of termination directing the
\n\tpetitioner Corporation to reinstate the respondent and to pass
\n\tafresh order.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tis also further submitted that even on merits also, the learned
\n\ttrial court was not justified in passing such an order quashing and
\n\tsetting aside the order of termination dtd.25\/2\/2008 and directing
\n\tthe petitioner to reinstate the respondent treating the order to be
\n\t25\/2\/2008 as cancelled. It is submitted that the learned trial court
\n\thas committed an error in  quashing and setting aside the order
\n\tdtd.25\/2\/2008 and holding that the implementation of the same is in
\n\tviolation of the order passed below notice of motion. It is
\n\tsubmitted that  the order passed below notice of motion is to be
\n\ttreated and considered during the pendency of the suit only  and
\n\tmoment of the suit is disposed of, the interim order below notice of
\n\tmotion will not survive and therefore, when the suit itself was
\n\tdismissed for non-prosecution, the order passed below notice of
\n\tmotion came to an end and the order passed below notice of motion
\n\twas not in existence  when the order dtd.25\/2\/2008 came to be passed
\n\tand implemented and therefore,  the learned trial court  has
\n\tmaterially erred in holding that  the order of termination
\n\tdtd.25\/2\/2001 and its implementation is in breach of the notice of
\n\tmotion. Mr.Chhaya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
\n\tpetitioner has heavily relied upon the decision of the Allahabad
\n\tHigh Court, Lucknow Bench in the case of Nagar Mahapalika,
\n\tLucknow Vs. Ved Prakash, reported in AIR 1976
\n\tAllahabad 264 and it is submitted that as held by the
\n\tAllahabad High Court when a suit was dismissed for default, but
\n\trestored, the interim injunction order would cease on dismissal of
\n\tthe suit and would not automatically revive on  setting aside of
\n\tdismissal order and restoration of suit. By making above submissions
\n\tand relying upon the above decision, Mr.Chhaya, learned advocate
\n\tappearing on behalf of the  petitioner has requested to allow both
\n\tthe petitions by quashing and setting aside the impugned order
\n\tdtd.11\/7\/2008 passed by the learned City Civil Judge, Ahmedabad
\n\t(Mr.J.D. Vyas) in Civil Misc.Application Nos.297 and 141 of 2008.\n<\/p>\n
Both
\n\tthese petitions are opposed by Mr.M.B. Gandhi, learned advocate
\n\tappearing on behalf of the  respondent ?  original plaintiff. He
\n\thas relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
\n\tcase of Ganesh Prasad Sah Kesari and another Vs. Lakshmi
\n\tNarayan Gupta,  reported  in  AIR 1985 S.C. 964
\n\tin support of his submissions that once suit is restored, ad-interim
\n\torder would automatically revive. He has also relied upon the
\n\tanother decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prithwi
\n\tNath Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand and others, reported in
\n\t(2004) 7 SCC  261 more particularly Head-Note-B of the
\n\tsaid decision. He has also further submitted that even in case where
\n\tsuit is dismissed for non-prosecution and\/or dismissed, the order
\n\tpassed below notice of motion  continues. It is further submitted
\n\tthat  while disposing the notice of motion it was ordered that as
\n\tand when order of punishment is passed, the same shall not be
\n\timplemented for a period of 15 days, in the present case, the order
\n\tof termination came to be passed on 25\/2\/2008 and came to be
\n\timplemented  and served upon the respondent immediately on the next
\n\tday and therefore, the same was in breach of the order passed below
\n\tnotice of motion  and therefore, the trial court has rightly quashed
\n\tand set aside the order dtd.25\/2\/2008 directing to treat it as
\n\tcancelled and by further directing the petitioner Corporation to
\n\treinstate the respondent immediately. Submitting accordingly, it is
\n\trequested to dismiss both the petitions.\n<\/p>\n
Heard
\n\tthe learned advocates appearing on behalf of the  respective parties
\n\tat length.\n<\/p>\n
At
\n\tthe outset, it is required to be noted that  at the time of
\n\tinstitution of the suit, the respondent ?  original plaintiff had
\n\ttaken out notice of motion praying for temporary injunction and the
\n\tsaid notice of motion came to be disposed of by directing that if
\n\tany final order is passed by the petitioner Corporation, the same
\n\tshall not be implemented for a period of 15 days. However,
\n\tsubsequently, the Civil Suit came to be dismissed for
\n\tnon-prosecution by the learned City Civil Court on 24\/10\/2007.
\n\tNormally any order in interim application passed below application
\n\tEx.5 and\/or notice of motion,  is to be confined during the
\n\tpenedency and final disposal of the suit. In the present case, the
\n\tsuit came to be dismissed  for non-prosecution on 24\/10\/2007 and
\n\tthereafter, even after a period of almost five months, no steps were
\n\ttaken by the respondent – original plaintiff  to restore the suit.
\n\tThe petitioner Corporation passed order of termination dtd.25\/2\/2008
\n\tand dismissed  the respondent from service and the said order of
\n\tdismissal came to be implemented on 26\/2\/2008. Thus, at the relevant
\n\ttime, when the order was passed on 25\/2\/2008 and implemented on
\n\t26\/2\/2008, the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution and the suit
\n\twas not in existence and consequently there was no order below the
\n\tnotice of motion  in existence inasmuch as the order passed below
\n\tnotice of motion is automatically ceased to be in operation, moment
\n\tthe suit is dismissed and therefore, it cannot be said that at the
\n\trelevant time when the order dtd.25\/2\/008 was passed and
\n\timplemented, the interim order was in operation. Therefore, the
\n\torder of termination can not be said to be in breach of the order
\n\tpassed below notice of motion.\n<\/p>\n
Now,
\n\tso far as the contention on behalf of the respondent relying upon
\n\tthe aforesaid two decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court  that when
\n\tthe suit is restored, ad-interim relief would automatically revive,
\n\tis concerned it is required to be noted that firstly as on today,
\n\tthere is no specific order  passed by the learned City Civil Court
\n\trestoring the suit. Not only that even the delay in submitting the
\n\trestoration which was prayed by submitting Misc.Civil Application
\n\tNo.142 of 2008  is also not condoned.  Thus, as on today, neither
\n\tthe delay in preferring the restoration application is condoned nor
\n\tthe suit is restored to file and therefore, the contention on behalf
\n\tof the respondent that once the suit is restored, ad-interim relief
\n\twould revive, cannot be accepted and the said question does not
\n\tarise.  Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the
\n\taforesaid two decisions would not be helpful to the respondent ?
\n\toriginal plaintiff at this stage.\n<\/p>\n
Even
\n\totherwise,  even otherwise assuming that once the suit is restored
\n\tand the ad-interim order would revive, in that case also, the
\n\tfurther question which is required to be considered is that what
\n\twill happen to the action which is already taken during  the time
\n\twhen the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution and the same was not
\n\trestored and thereafter the suit is restored.  As per this court in
\n\tsuch a situation where any action is already taken during  the time
\n\twhen the suit  is dismissed for non-prosecution and  thereafter the
\n\tsuit is restored and if the contention of the respondent is
\n\taccepted, the ad-interim order would revive on restoration of the
\n\tsuit, in that case also, any action taken during  the time when the
\n\tsuit was dismissed for non-prosecution and was not in existence, the
\n\tsaid revival of ad-interim relief on restoration of the suit would
\n\tnot affect the action already taken during the time when the suit
\n\twas not in existence and consequently it cannot be said that  such
\n\tan action was illegal and\/or in breach of ad-interim order \/
\n\tinjunction therefore, in the present case the action was  taken when
\n\tthe suit was dismissed for non-prosecution and therefore, even if
\n\tthe contention and submission of the respondent that  on restoration
\n\tof the suit, ad-interim relief passed below notice of motion would
\n\tautomatically revive, is accepted, in that case also, as  stated
\n\tabove,  it will not affect any order passed by the Corporation when
\n\tthe suit was dismissed for non-prosecution and when the suit was not
\n\tin existence  Further, in the present case as stated above,  neither
\n\tthere is any order passed  by the Court to restore the suit nor even
\n\tthe delay in preferring the restoration application is condoned.\n<\/p>\n
Even
\n\tthe contention on behalf of the respondent that even if the suit is
\n\tdismissed for non-prosecution, the interim order passed below notice
\n\tof motion continues, cannot be accepted, as any interim order and\/or
\n\tinterlocutory order  passed below application Ex.5 or below notice
\n\tof motion is always to be treated during the pendency of the suit
\n\tand moment the suit  is dismissed either on merits or for
\n\tnon-prosecution, the said interim relief and\/or interim injunction
\n\tand\/or  interlocutory order would ceased to be in operation and
\n\ttherefore,  such a contention that even if the suit is dismissed for
\n\tnon-prosecution  the order passed below notice of motion would
\n\tcontinue, cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
Considering
\n\tthe above, the impugned oder passed by the learned trial court
\n\twithout disposing the main application without condoning the delay
\n\tin submitting  the Restoration Application  and quashing and setting
\n\taside the termination order dtd.25\/2\/2008 and to treat it as
\n\tcancelled and directing the petitioner Corporation to  reinstate the
\n\trespondent w.e.f. 26\/2\/2008, cannot be sustained and the same
\n\tdeserves to be  quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n
For
\n\tthe reasons stated above, both the Special Civil Applications
\n\tsucceed. The impugned order dtd.11\/7\/2008 passed by the learned City
\n\tCivil Judge, Ahmedabad in Civil Misc.Application Nos.297 and 141 of
\n\t2008  is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute
\n\taccordingly in each of the petitions. There shall be no order as to
\n\tcosts.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t[M.R.\n<\/p>\n
SHAH, J.]<\/p>\n
rafik<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Ahmedabad vs Lilaben on 11 November, 2011 Author: M.R. Shah, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/9693\/2008 15\/ 15 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9693 of 2008 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9694 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH […]<\/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-254209","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAhmedabad vs Lilaben on 11 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-lilaben-on-11-november-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ahmedabad vs Lilaben on 11 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-lilaben-on-11-november-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-04T21:40:02+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ahmedabad-vs-lilaben-on-11-november-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ahmedabad-vs-lilaben-on-11-november-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ahmedabad vs Lilaben on 11 November, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-04T21:40:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ahmedabad-vs-lilaben-on-11-november-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2644,\"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\\\/ahmedabad-vs-lilaben-on-11-november-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ahmedabad-vs-lilaben-on-11-november-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ahmedabad-vs-lilaben-on-11-november-2011\",\"name\":\"Ahmedabad vs Lilaben on 11 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-04T21:40:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ahmedabad-vs-lilaben-on-11-november-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ahmedabad-vs-lilaben-on-11-november-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ahmedabad-vs-lilaben-on-11-november-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ahmedabad vs Lilaben on 11 November, 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":"Ahmedabad vs Lilaben on 11 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-lilaben-on-11-november-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ahmedabad vs Lilaben on 11 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-lilaben-on-11-november-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-04T21:40:02+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-lilaben-on-11-november-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-lilaben-on-11-november-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ahmedabad vs Lilaben on 11 November, 2011","datePublished":"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-04T21:40:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-lilaben-on-11-november-2011"},"wordCount":2644,"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\/ahmedabad-vs-lilaben-on-11-november-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-lilaben-on-11-november-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-lilaben-on-11-november-2011","name":"Ahmedabad vs Lilaben on 11 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-04T21:40:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-lilaben-on-11-november-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-lilaben-on-11-november-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-lilaben-on-11-november-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ahmedabad vs Lilaben on 11 November, 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\/254209","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=254209"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/254209\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=254209"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=254209"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=254209"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}