{"id":262106,"date":"2010-08-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anchal-mishra-vs-shankar-singh-rathore-on-4-august-2010"},"modified":"2014-04-28T16:58:40","modified_gmt":"2014-04-28T11:28:40","slug":"anchal-mishra-vs-shankar-singh-rathore-on-4-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anchal-mishra-vs-shankar-singh-rathore-on-4-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"Anchal Mishra vs Shankar Singh Rathore on 4 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n
Anchal Mishra vs Shankar Singh Rathore on 4 August, 2010<\/div>\n
                                    1\n\n        HIGH COURT OF M. P. JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR\n\n                  SECOND APPEAL NO.1270 of 2009.\n\n                             Anchal Mishra\n                                Versus.\n                           Shankar Singh Rathore\n\n\nFor appellant          :    Shri Umakant Sharma, Sr.Advocate assisted\n                            by Shri P.N.Tiwari, Advocate.\n\nFor respondent     :        Shri Jai Singh Thakur, Advocate.\n\n\n                           O R D E R (ORAL)\n<\/pre>\n
                              (04.08.2010)
\nPer U. C. Maheshw ari J.\n<\/p>\n
\n
      The   appellant\/defendant     has   directed   this   appeal   under<\/p>\n
Section 100 of the CPC being aggrieved by the judgment and decree<\/p>\n
dated 8.9.2009 passed by 20 t h    Additional District Judge , District<\/p>\n
Jabalpur in regular civil appeal No.27-A\/09 affirming the judgment<\/p>\n
and decree dated 24.2.2009 passed by the 11 t h Civil Judge Class-I,<\/p>\n
Jabalpur in original civil suit No. 112-A\/08, decreeing the suit of<\/p>\n
the respondent for eviction against the appellant with respect of a<\/p>\n
shop the non-residential accommodation described in the plaint,<\/p>\n
situated in Adhartal, Jabalpur.\n<\/p>\n
2.          The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that<\/p>\n
respondent herein filed the suit for eviction against the appellant,<\/p>\n
with respect of the above-mentioned shop situated in Adhartal,<\/p>\n
Jabalpur, described with all particulars in the plaint and also shown<\/p>\n
in the annexed map with the plaint, on the ground of arrears of rent<\/p>\n
under section 12(1)(a) and also on the ground of his bonafide
\n                                  2<\/span><\/p>\n
genuine requirement of the disputed accommodation under section<\/p>\n
12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short<\/p>\n
`the Act’) for the business of his sons Naval Kishore and Manish for<\/p>\n
which they did not have any other accommodation of his own in the<\/p>\n
city of Jabalpur. As per some other averments of the plaint, the<\/p>\n
appellant is stated to be his monthly tenant at the rate of Rs.300\/-<\/p>\n
per month in such shop for non-residential purpose. The appellant,<\/p>\n
being defaulter in payment of the rent, did not pay the rent between<\/p>\n
1.11.09 to 31.5.2002, on which, a demand notice was given by him<\/p>\n
to the appellant through his counsel vide dated 1.6.2002. The same<\/p>\n
was served, inspite that, within the statutory period, the rent was<\/p>\n
not paid.   Besides this, the respondent is in need of the alleged<\/p>\n
accommodation for the business of his son Naval Kishore for<\/p>\n
opening the General Store. At present, he is working in the shop of<\/p>\n
his younger brother. The need of Manish is also stated in the plaint.<\/p>\n
In these circumstances, prayer for eviction on the above mentioned<\/p>\n
ground is made.\n<\/p>\n
3.    In the written statement of the appellant, by admitting the<\/p>\n
tenancy of the accommodation, the rate of rent was disputed stating<\/p>\n
that the same is Rs.250\/- per month and accordingly the same was<\/p>\n
regularly paid to the respondent. Appellant also spent Rs.17000\/- in<\/p>\n
repairing for keeping the disputed house in tenanted condition and<\/p>\n
as per agreement with the respondent, the same was to be adjusted<\/p>\n
in the sum of the rent.    In such premises, no default has been<\/p>\n
committed by him in payment of the monthly rent. On the contrary<\/p>\n
the appellant has claimed against the respondent Rs.8000\/-.        In
\n                                   3<\/span><\/p>\n
addition, it is stated that the respondent is having three vacant<\/p>\n
shops of his own in possession and, in such premises, the alleged<\/p>\n
need could not be deemed to be neither bonafide nor genuine. Only<\/p>\n
for    creating the undue pressure for enhancing the rent of the<\/p>\n
accommodation upto Rs.1000\/-, the suit has been filed with<\/p>\n
malafide intention and prayer for dismissal of the suit is made.<\/p>\n
4.     In view of the pleadings of the parties, after framing the<\/p>\n
issues and recording the evidence, on appreciation of the same, the<\/p>\n
suit of the respondent has been decreed by the trial court against the<\/p>\n
appellant for eviction under section 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(f) of the<\/p>\n
Act.   On challenging such decree before the subordinate appellate<\/p>\n
court by the appellant, on consideration, by affirming the same, the<\/p>\n
appeal was dismissed, on which, the appellant has come forward to<\/p>\n
this court with this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
5.     Shri Umakant Sharma, learned Senior counsel, after taking me<\/p>\n
through the pleadings, evidence available on the record and the<\/p>\n
exhibited documents, argued that in the available circumstances, the<\/p>\n
approach of both the courts below holding the appellant to be<\/p>\n
defaulter in payment of the rent, is not sustainable under the law as<\/p>\n
the entire arrears and regular rent was deposited by the appellant in<\/p>\n
accordance with the provision of section 13(1) and (2) of the Act<\/p>\n
but without considering such aspect, the decree has been passed<\/p>\n
under section 12(1)(a) of the Act under wrong premises.             In<\/p>\n
continuation, he said that the respondent was not the only owner of<\/p>\n
the property. As such, the property was belong to joint family of the<\/p>\n
respondents and in the absence of any proof of partition between the
\n                                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
members of the family, the respondent could not be termed to be the<\/p>\n
landlord of the disputed accommodation and, in such premises,<\/p>\n
decree passed under section 12(1)(f) of the Act by the courts below<\/p>\n
is not sustainable.    He also argued that the available alternate<\/p>\n
accommodation with the respondent as stated by the appellant has<\/p>\n
not   been   taken    into   consideration.   Even     some   of   such<\/p>\n
accommodations, have not been pleaded by the respondent in the<\/p>\n
plaint with proper explanation and without considering all such<\/p>\n
aspects, the impugned decree on the ground of bonafide genuine<\/p>\n
requirement is passed by the courts below under wrong premises,<\/p>\n
therefore, at this stage, by admitting this appeal, re-appreciation of<\/p>\n
the evidence is necessary and, in such premises, he prayed for<\/p>\n
admission of this appeal on the proposed substantial questions of<\/p>\n
law mentioned in the appeal memo.\n<\/p>\n
6.    Having heard the counsel, I have carefully examined the<\/p>\n
record of both the courts below and perused the impugned<\/p>\n
judgments. It is apparent fact on record that the impugned decree<\/p>\n
has been concurrently passed by both the courts below for eviction<\/p>\n
of the appellant under section 12(1)(a) and 2(1)(f) of the Act and<\/p>\n
such findings being based on appreciation of the evidence could be<\/p>\n
termed only findings of fact and, according to my opinion, the same<\/p>\n
is not giving rise to any question of law rather than the substantial<\/p>\n
question of law requiring any consideration at this stage under<\/p>\n
section 100 of the CPC. In such premises, this appeal deserves to<\/p>\n
be dismissed at the initial stage of motion hearing.
\n                                  5<\/span><\/p>\n
7.    So far the argument of the appellant’s counsel relating to<\/p>\n
section 12(1)(a) of the Act is concerned, mere perusal of the<\/p>\n
impugned judgment and the evidence of the parties, it is revealed<\/p>\n
that appellant was remained defaulter in payment of the regular rent<\/p>\n
of the disputed accommodation and in such premises, the impugned<\/p>\n
decree has been rightly passed by the courts below and the same<\/p>\n
could not be interfered at this stage in view of the principle laid<\/p>\n
down by the Apex Court in the matter of      Jamnalal and others<\/p>\n
Vs. Radheshyam (2000) 4 SCC 380.\n<\/p>\n
8.    So far the argument of the appellant’s counsel on the<\/p>\n
ground of bonafide genuine requirement under section 12(1)(f)<\/p>\n
is concerned, in view of the settled proposition of the law laid<\/p>\n
down by the Apex Court in the matter of Dr. Ranbir Singh Vs.<\/p>\n
Asharfi Lal-(1995) 6 SCC 580 holding that the concurrent<\/p>\n
findings of the courts below based on appreciation of the<\/p>\n
evidence on the ground of bonafide genuine requirement, could<\/p>\n
not be interfered at the stage of second appeal under section<\/p>\n
100 of the CPC, such argument has not appealed me for framing<\/p>\n
any substantial question of law in the matter.\n<\/p>\n
9.    So far the argument of the appellant’s counsel saying that<\/p>\n
the respondent could not prove that he is the owner of the<\/p>\n
disputed accommodation and acquired absolute title in the<\/p>\n
property on their family partition thus he was not entitled to<\/p>\n
file the suit under section 12(1)(f) of the Act is concerned, it is<\/p>\n
apparent fact on record that in any case the respondent being
\n                                       6<\/span><\/p>\n
co-parcenor of the joint property was the co-owner of the<\/p>\n
property and if the property was not divided between them even<\/p>\n
then in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the<\/p>\n
matter of Sri Ram Pasricha Vs. Jagannath and others- AIR<\/p>\n
1976 SC 2335 in which it was held that every co-parcenor is<\/p>\n
the owner of every part of the property till it is divided between<\/p>\n
amongst the co-parcenors of the family or co-owners, the<\/p>\n
respondent had a right to file the suit for eviction.                  Even<\/p>\n
otherwise for the sake of arguments, if it is deemed that the suit<\/p>\n
is filed by the co-owner or co-parcenor of the family even then<\/p>\n
in view of the aforesaid cited case the courts below have not<\/p>\n
committed any error of law, in such premises also, I have not<\/p>\n
found any perversity in the impugned judgment giving rise to<\/p>\n
any substantial question of law requiring any consideration at<\/p>\n
this stage.\n<\/p>\n
10.   In   view    of    the   aforesaid,    I   have   not    found    any<\/p>\n
circumstance giving rise to any question of law for admission<\/p>\n
of this appeal, resultantly, in the lack of it, the same is hereby<\/p>\n
dismissed at the stage of motion hearing.\n<\/p>\n
11.   However, taking into consideration that the appellant is in<\/p>\n
possession    of   the     disputed       accommodation       since    long,<\/p>\n
therefore, it would not be possible for him to vacate the same<\/p>\n
within short period. Therefore, subject to some conditions, I<\/p>\n
deem fit to extend some time to him for vacating the disputed
\n                                 7<\/span><\/p>\n
premises. Hence, it is directed that on depositing the entire<\/p>\n
decreetal sum including the arrears of the rent, if any, and on<\/p>\n
furnishing appropriate surety to the satisfaction of the trial<\/p>\n
court within thirty days from today along with an undertaking<\/p>\n
that the appellant shall vacate the disputed premises and hand-<\/p>\n
over its peaceful possession to the decree holder on or before<\/p>\n
28.02.2011, then subject to payment of regular monthly mesne<\/p>\n
profit of the disputed accommodation at the rate of the monthly<\/p>\n
rent as held by the courts below within 15 days from the end of<\/p>\n
such every tenancy month, the appellant is extended the time to<\/p>\n
vacate the premises up to 28.2.2011. Failing in compliance of<\/p>\n
any of the aforesaid condition, the respondent\/decree holder<\/p>\n
and the executing court shall be at liberty to execute the decree<\/p>\n
of eviction forthwith with all aspects.\n<\/p>\n
12.   The appeal is dismissed as indicated above.<\/p>\n
                                    (U.C.MAHESHWARI)
\n                                          JUDGE
\nMKL
\n 8<\/span>
\n 9<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court Anchal Mishra vs Shankar Singh Rathore on 4 August, 2010 1 HIGH COURT OF M. P. JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.1270 of 2009. Anchal Mishra Versus. Shankar Singh Rathore For appellant : Shri Umakant Sharma, Sr.Advocate assisted by Shri P.N.Tiwari, Advocate. For respondent : Shri Jai Singh Thakur, Advocate. O […]<\/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":[8,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-262106","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madhya-pradesh-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAnchal Mishra vs Shankar Singh Rathore on 4 August, 2010 - 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\/anchal-mishra-vs-shankar-singh-rathore-on-4-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Anchal Mishra vs Shankar Singh Rathore on 4 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anchal-mishra-vs-shankar-singh-rathore-on-4-august-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-08-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-04-28T11:28:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anchal-mishra-vs-shankar-singh-rathore-on-4-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anchal-mishra-vs-shankar-singh-rathore-on-4-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Anchal Mishra vs Shankar Singh Rathore on 4 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-04-28T11:28:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anchal-mishra-vs-shankar-singh-rathore-on-4-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1659,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madhya Pradesh High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anchal-mishra-vs-shankar-singh-rathore-on-4-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anchal-mishra-vs-shankar-singh-rathore-on-4-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anchal-mishra-vs-shankar-singh-rathore-on-4-august-2010\",\"name\":\"Anchal Mishra vs Shankar Singh Rathore on 4 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-04-28T11:28:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anchal-mishra-vs-shankar-singh-rathore-on-4-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anchal-mishra-vs-shankar-singh-rathore-on-4-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anchal-mishra-vs-shankar-singh-rathore-on-4-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Anchal Mishra vs Shankar Singh Rathore on 4 August, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Anchal Mishra vs Shankar Singh Rathore on 4 August, 2010 - 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\/anchal-mishra-vs-shankar-singh-rathore-on-4-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Anchal Mishra vs Shankar Singh Rathore on 4 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anchal-mishra-vs-shankar-singh-rathore-on-4-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-04-28T11:28:40+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anchal-mishra-vs-shankar-singh-rathore-on-4-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anchal-mishra-vs-shankar-singh-rathore-on-4-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Anchal Mishra vs Shankar Singh Rathore on 4 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-04-28T11:28:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anchal-mishra-vs-shankar-singh-rathore-on-4-august-2010"},"wordCount":1659,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madhya Pradesh High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anchal-mishra-vs-shankar-singh-rathore-on-4-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anchal-mishra-vs-shankar-singh-rathore-on-4-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anchal-mishra-vs-shankar-singh-rathore-on-4-august-2010","name":"Anchal Mishra vs Shankar Singh Rathore on 4 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-04-28T11:28:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anchal-mishra-vs-shankar-singh-rathore-on-4-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anchal-mishra-vs-shankar-singh-rathore-on-4-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anchal-mishra-vs-shankar-singh-rathore-on-4-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Anchal Mishra vs Shankar Singh Rathore on 4 August, 2010"}]},{"@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\/262106","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=262106"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/262106\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=262106"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=262106"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=262106"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}