{"id":25561,"date":"1966-10-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1966-10-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lala-ram-vs-supreme-court-of-india-ors-on-31-october-1966"},"modified":"2015-10-27T05:53:32","modified_gmt":"2015-10-27T00:23:32","slug":"lala-ram-vs-supreme-court-of-india-ors-on-31-october-1966","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lala-ram-vs-supreme-court-of-india-ors-on-31-october-1966","title":{"rendered":"Lala Ram vs Supreme Court Of India &amp; Ors on 31 October, 1966"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Lala Ram vs Supreme Court Of India &amp; Ors on 31 October, 1966<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR  847, \t\t  1967 SCR  (1)\t 14<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K S Rao<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Rao, K. Subba (Cj), Hidayatullah, M., Sikri, S.M., Bachawat, R.S., Shelat, J.M.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nLALA RAM\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSUPREME COURT OF INDIA &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n31\/10\/1966\n\nBENCH:\nRAO, K. SUBBA (CJ)\nBENCH:\nRAO, K. SUBBA (CJ)\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\nSIKRI, S.M.\nBACHAWAT, R.S.\nSHELAT, J.M.\n\nCITATION:\n 1967 AIR  847\t\t  1967 SCR  (1)\t 14\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1973 SC2464\t (4)\n RF\t    1980 SC 808\t (20)\n D\t    1985 SC 694\t (4)\n\n\nACT:\nSupreme\t Court Rules, 1966, Rules 2(2) Order XL-Deposite  of\ncash  security\tof  Rs. 2000 a pre-condition  for  filing  a\nreview\tpetition in respect of an earlier dismissal of\twrit\npetition  under\t Art. 32-Such rule whether  ultra  vires  as\nobstructing the enforcement of a fundamental right.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nSpecial\t leave granted to the petitioner under Art.  136  of\nthe  Constitution  was revoked for non-prosecution  and\t his\nspecial\t leave petition was dismissed.\tHe filed a  petition\nunder Art. 32 claiming that the said revocation of leave and\ndismissal of special leave petition was in violation of\t his\nfundamental  right  under Art. 14 inasmuch as  he  had\tbeen\ndeprived  of his right of appeal.  The Court  dismissed\t the\nwrit  petition,\t The petitioner then filed  a  petition\t for\nreview\tof  the\t order.\t  The  review  petition\t was   found\ndefective  as the cash security of Rs. 2,000 as required  by\nO. XL r. 2(2) of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 had not\tbeen\ndeposited.  The petitioner urged, relying on the decision of\nthis  Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1945293\/\">Prem Chand Garg v. Excise  Commissioner\tU.P.<\/a>\nthat the said rule was ultra vires inasmuch as it obstructed\nhis remedy under Art. 32 in defence of a fundamental right.\nHELD:The raison d'etre for the rule in question may  be\nthree fold, namely (i) the petitioner has been given a\tfull\nhearing and his case had been disposed of on merits; (ii) it\nis a deterrent against frivolous applications; and (iii)  it\nis to safeguard the interests of the respondent who has\t the\njudgment in his favour. [16 B]\nThere is an essential distinction between an application for\nthe enforcement of a fundamental right and an application to\nreview an order made therein.  The main purpose of a  review\npetition is not to enforce a fundamental right but to reopen\nan  order vitiated by an error on the face of the record  or\nfor such other reasons. [16 H]\nTherefore  while  any  onerous\tcondition  for\tenforcing  a\nfundamental  right  may infringe Art. 32 itself as  held  as\nheld  in Garg's case, but the same thing cannot-be said\t for\nan application for review of the order made therein. [17 A]\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1945293\/\">Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, U.P. Allhabad<\/a> [1963]\nSupp.  I S.C.R. 885, distinguished.\nThe fact that deposit of security is a pre-condition only in\nthe  case  of  a  review  petition  does  not  lead  to\t any\ndiscrimination because the main difference between a  review\npetition  and other proceedings is that in the case  of\t the\nformer this Court is asked to reopen a matter which has been\nclosed\tafter  hearing the parties.  This  is  a  sufficient\nreason\t to  sustain  the  distinction\tand  it\t affords   a\nreasonable nexus to the objects sought to be achieved by the\nimposition of the pre-condition. [17 F]\nThe  fact  that\t a  rule  in  certain  circumstances  proves\nprejudicial   to  the  interests  of  a\t petitioner   cannot\ninvalidate the rule when admittedly this Court has power  to\nmake it under Art. 145 of the Constitution. [17 D]\n15\n[Having regard to the circumstances of the case however\t the\nCourt reduced the amount of cash security from Rs. 2,000  to\nRs. 250 only,]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Review Petition No. 8 of 1966.<br \/>\nPetition  for review of this Court&#8217;s order dated  March\t 24,<br \/>\n1966 dismissing Writ Petition No. 85 of 1966.<br \/>\nHira Lal Jain, for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>Niren De, Addl.\t Solicitor-General and R. H. Dhebar, for the<br \/>\nAttorney-General for India (on notice by the Court).<br \/>\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nSubba Rao, C.J. In this petition the question of the consti-<br \/>\ntutional validity of Order XL, r. 2(2) of the Supreme  Court<br \/>\nRules, 1966, hereinafter called the Rules, is raised.<br \/>\nThe  petitioner filed a special leave petition\tagainst\t the<br \/>\njudgment and decree of the High Court of Punjab passed in  a<br \/>\nLetters\t Patent\t Appeal.   On January  14,1964,\t this  Court<br \/>\ngranted special leave.\tThereafter, the petitioner deposited<br \/>\nthe  amount  of security and some money as  advance  towards<br \/>\nprinting  charges.   But, as he failed to file the  list  of<br \/>\ndocuments,  on April 2, 1965, special leave granted  to\t him<br \/>\nwas  rescinded and the special leave petition was  dismissed<br \/>\nfor  non-prosecution.\tThen  the petitioner  filed  a\twrit<br \/>\npetition, being Writ Petition No. 85 of 1966, in this  Court<br \/>\nunder  Art.  32 of the Constitution on the ground  that\t the<br \/>\nsaid  order of revocation of the special leave\tgranted\t and<br \/>\nthe dismissal of his special leave petition deprived him  of<br \/>\nhis right to appeal and that the said order offended Art. 14<br \/>\nof  the\t Constitution.\t On  March  24,\t 1966,\tthis   Court<br \/>\ndismissed  that\t writ  petition.  On  April  15,  1966,\t the<br \/>\npetitioner  filed  the present petition\t for  reviewing\t the<br \/>\norder  of this Court in Write Petition No. 85 of 1966  dated<br \/>\nMarch 24, 1966.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  Office Report pointed out that the Review Petition\t was<br \/>\ndefective inasmuch as the provisions of Order XL, r. 2(2) of<br \/>\nthe  Rules were not complied with by the reason of the\tfact<br \/>\nthat  no security for the costs of the respondents had\tbeen<br \/>\nfurnished.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr.  Hiralal  Jain,  learned  counsel  for  the\t petitioner,<br \/>\ncontends  that Order XL, r. 2(2) of the Rules is void as  it<br \/>\ninfringes  Art.\t 14  of the  Constitution.   The  said\trule<br \/>\nreads:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;No   application\t for  review  in   a   civil<br \/>\n\t      proceeding  shall\t be entertained\t unless\t the<br \/>\n\t      party   seeking\treview\tfurnished   to\t the<br \/>\n\t      Registrar of this Court at the time of  filing<br \/>\n\t      the  petition for review cash security to\t the<br \/>\n\t      extent of two thousand rupees for the costs of<br \/>\n\t      the opposite party&#8221;.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Under  this rule a review application cannot be\t entertained<br \/>\nat  all unless the cash security of Rs. 2,000 for the  costs<br \/>\nof the opposite<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">16<\/span><br \/>\nparty  is  furnished.  While in the case  of  special  leave<br \/>\npetition cash security will have to be furnished within\t the<br \/>\ntime  prescribed  after leave is granted, in the case  of  a<br \/>\nreview petition the deposit of the security amount is a pre-<br \/>\ncondition  for filing the petition.  This provision is\tmore<br \/>\nonerous\t than the other.  The raison detre for the rule\t may<br \/>\nbe  three-fold, namely, (i) the petitioner has been given  a<br \/>\nfull  hearing and his case had been disposed of\t on  merits;\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii)  it is a deterrent against frivolous applications;\t and\n<\/p>\n<p>(iii) it is to safeguard the interests of the respondent who<br \/>\nhas the judgment in his favour.\n<\/p>\n<p>But, it is contended that this Court had held in <a href=\"\/doc\/1945293\/\">Prem  Chand<br \/>\nGarg  v. Excise Commissioner, U.P., Allababad<\/a>(1) that  Order<br \/>\nXXXV,  r.  12  of  the Supreme Court  Rules  then  in  force<br \/>\nempowering the Supreme Court in writ petitions under Art. 32<br \/>\nof  the Constitution to require the petitioners\t to  furnish<br \/>\nsecurity for the costs of the respondents was invalid as  it<br \/>\nplaced\tobstructions  on the  fundamental  right  guaranteed<br \/>\nunder Art. 32 to move this Court for the enforcement of\t the<br \/>\nsaid  right,  and  that, on the parity\tof  reasoning,\tthis<br \/>\n&#8216;Court\tshould hold that a petition for reviewing  an  order<br \/>\ndismissing the application to enforce the fundamental  right<br \/>\nwould  equally\tbe  void  as contravening  Art.\t 32  of\t the<br \/>\nConstitution.\tIt  is also pointed out that  the  condition<br \/>\nimposed in the case of review petitions is more onerous than<br \/>\nthat  imposed  in  the\tcase  of  applications\tto   enforce<br \/>\nfundamental rights, for, while in the case of the latter the<br \/>\nsecurity  would\t have  to be furnished after  the  leave  is<br \/>\ngranted, in the case of the former it should be furnished at<br \/>\nthe  time of filing the petition itself.  Under Order  XXXV,<br \/>\nr.  12,\t of the Supreme Court Rules this Court\tmay  in\t the<br \/>\nproceedings  to\t which the said order  applied\timpose\tsuch<br \/>\nterms as to costs and as to giving of security as it thought<br \/>\nfit.   At that time under the impugned rule  the  petitioner<br \/>\nshould\tdeposit a security of Rs. 2,500 in cash\t within\t six<br \/>\nweeks.\tWhile holding that the said rule offended Art. 32 of<br \/>\nthe Constitution, this Court observed:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;But if a rule or an order imposes a financial<br \/>\n\t      liability on the petitioner at the thresh-hold<br \/>\n\t      of  his petition and that too for the  benefit<br \/>\n\t      of the respondent, and non-compliance with the<br \/>\n\t      said rule or order brings to an end the career<br \/>\n\t      of  the  said petition, that must be  held  to<br \/>\n\t      constitute an infringement of the\t fundamental<br \/>\n\t      right guaranteed to the citizens to move\tthis<br \/>\n\t      Court under Art. 32&#8221;.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>At  the\t same  time  this  Court  pointed  out\tthat   other<br \/>\nconditions might be imposed which would not have the  effect<br \/>\nof bringing to an end the career of the said petition.\t But<br \/>\nthere is an essential distinction between an application for<br \/>\nthe enforcement of a fundamental right and an application to<br \/>\nreview an order made therein.\n<\/p>\n<p>(1)  [1963] Supp.  1 S.C.R 885,902.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">17<\/span><\/p>\n<p>While  any  onerous condition for  enforcing  a\t fundamental<br \/>\nright may infringe Art. 32 itself, but the same thing cannot<br \/>\nbe  said  for an application for review of  the\t order\tmade<br \/>\ntherein,  for  that  is\t not an\t application  to  enforce  a<br \/>\nfundamental right.  The main purpose of a review petition is<br \/>\nnot  to enforce a fundamental right, but to reopen an  order<br \/>\nvitiated  by an error on the face of the record or for\tsuch<br \/>\nother reasons.\tBut it is said that the effect of  reopening<br \/>\nof the earlier order would be to restore his application  to<br \/>\nenforce&#8217; the fundamental right and, therefore, in effect and<br \/>\nsubstance, an application to review such an order is also an<br \/>\napplication  to\t enforce the fundamental right.\t It  may  be<br \/>\nthat  this is a consequence of reopening an order,  but\t the<br \/>\napplication  itself, as we have said, is not to enforce\t the<br \/>\nfundamental right.\n<\/p>\n<p>It   is\t  true\tthat  in  some\tcases  and   under   certain<br \/>\ncircumstances  the pre-condition to furnish security may  be<br \/>\nhighly\tprejudicial to-, the interests of a  petitioner\t who<br \/>\nhas  a real grievance.\tSuch a result is inevitable  in\t the<br \/>\napplication  of\t any  rule.   But  that\t in  itself   cannot<br \/>\ninvalidate  a rule which admittedly this Court has power  to<br \/>\nmake  under  Art. 145 of the Constitution.   In\t appropriate<br \/>\ncases this Court has the residuary power under Order  XLVII,<br \/>\nr.  I of the Rules,, for sufficient reasons shown to  excuse<br \/>\nthe parties from compliance with any of the requirements  of<br \/>\nthe Rules and it may also give such directions in matters of<br \/>\npractice  and  procedure  as  it  may,\tconsider  just\t and<br \/>\nexpedient.\n<\/p>\n<p>It  is then contended that the enforcement of Order  XL,  r.<br \/>\n2(2)  of the Rules will lead to\t unjustified  discrimination<br \/>\nbetween\t parties and, therefore, it offends Art. 14  of\t the<br \/>\nConstitution.\tThe discrimination alleged lies in the\tfact<br \/>\nthat while security need not be given as a pre-condition for<br \/>\nthe  filing of any proceeding ill this Court, it has  to  be<br \/>\ngiven  only  in\t the case of a review  petition.   There  is<br \/>\ncertainly  a reasonable nexus between such a  condition\t and<br \/>\nthe,   differences   between   parties\t taking\t   different<br \/>\nproceedings in this Court.  The main distinction which makes<br \/>\nall the difference is that in the case of a review  petition<br \/>\nthis Court is asked to reopen a matter which has been closed<br \/>\nafter  hearing the parties.  This is a sufficient reason  to<br \/>\nsustain the distinction and it affords a reasonable nexus to<br \/>\nthe  objects sought to be achieved by the imposition of\t the<br \/>\npre-condition.\n<\/p>\n<p>But,  having  regard to the circumstances of  the  case,  in<br \/>\nexercise of our discretionary power, we reduce the amount of<br \/>\ncash  security\tfrom Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 250  only.   The\tsaid<br \/>\namount will be paid within two weeks from today.\n<\/p>\n<pre>G.C.\t\t\t\t\t    Security  amount\nreduced.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">18<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Lala Ram vs Supreme Court Of India &amp; Ors on 31 October, 1966 Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 847, 1967 SCR (1) 14 Author: K S Rao Bench: Rao, K. Subba (Cj), Hidayatullah, M., Sikri, S.M., Bachawat, R.S., Shelat, J.M. PETITIONER: LALA RAM Vs. RESPONDENT: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA &amp; ORS. DATE [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-25561","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Lala Ram vs Supreme Court Of India &amp; Ors on 31 October, 1966 - 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\/lala-ram-vs-supreme-court-of-india-ors-on-31-october-1966\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Lala Ram vs Supreme Court Of India &amp; Ors on 31 October, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lala-ram-vs-supreme-court-of-india-ors-on-31-october-1966\" \/>\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=\"1966-10-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-27T00:23:32+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lala-ram-vs-supreme-court-of-india-ors-on-31-october-1966#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lala-ram-vs-supreme-court-of-india-ors-on-31-october-1966\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Lala Ram vs Supreme Court Of India &amp; Ors on 31 October, 1966\",\"datePublished\":\"1966-10-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-27T00:23:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lala-ram-vs-supreme-court-of-india-ors-on-31-october-1966\"},\"wordCount\":1388,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lala-ram-vs-supreme-court-of-india-ors-on-31-october-1966#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lala-ram-vs-supreme-court-of-india-ors-on-31-october-1966\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lala-ram-vs-supreme-court-of-india-ors-on-31-october-1966\",\"name\":\"Lala Ram vs Supreme Court Of India &amp; Ors on 31 October, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1966-10-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-27T00:23:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lala-ram-vs-supreme-court-of-india-ors-on-31-october-1966#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lala-ram-vs-supreme-court-of-india-ors-on-31-october-1966\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lala-ram-vs-supreme-court-of-india-ors-on-31-october-1966#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Lala Ram vs Supreme Court Of India &amp; Ors on 31 October, 1966\"}]},{\"@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":"Lala Ram vs Supreme Court Of India &amp; Ors on 31 October, 1966 - 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\/lala-ram-vs-supreme-court-of-india-ors-on-31-october-1966","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Lala Ram vs Supreme Court Of India &amp; Ors on 31 October, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lala-ram-vs-supreme-court-of-india-ors-on-31-october-1966","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1966-10-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-27T00:23:32+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lala-ram-vs-supreme-court-of-india-ors-on-31-october-1966#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lala-ram-vs-supreme-court-of-india-ors-on-31-october-1966"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Lala Ram vs Supreme Court Of India &amp; Ors on 31 October, 1966","datePublished":"1966-10-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-27T00:23:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lala-ram-vs-supreme-court-of-india-ors-on-31-october-1966"},"wordCount":1388,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lala-ram-vs-supreme-court-of-india-ors-on-31-october-1966#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lala-ram-vs-supreme-court-of-india-ors-on-31-october-1966","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lala-ram-vs-supreme-court-of-india-ors-on-31-october-1966","name":"Lala Ram vs Supreme Court Of India &amp; Ors on 31 October, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1966-10-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-27T00:23:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lala-ram-vs-supreme-court-of-india-ors-on-31-october-1966#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lala-ram-vs-supreme-court-of-india-ors-on-31-october-1966"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lala-ram-vs-supreme-court-of-india-ors-on-31-october-1966#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Lala Ram vs Supreme Court Of India &amp; Ors on 31 October, 1966"}]},{"@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\/25561","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=25561"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25561\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25561"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25561"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25561"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}