{"id":26789,"date":"2010-07-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramakant-singh-vs-pramod-kumar-gupta-on-21-july-2010"},"modified":"2018-02-06T07:27:25","modified_gmt":"2018-02-06T01:57:25","slug":"ramakant-singh-vs-pramod-kumar-gupta-on-21-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramakant-singh-vs-pramod-kumar-gupta-on-21-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Ramakant Singh vs Pramod Kumar Gupta on 21 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court<\/div>\n
Ramakant Singh vs Pramod Kumar Gupta on 21 July, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Ravi Ranjan<\/div>\n
                                 Civi Revision No.703 of 2009\n\n                       Against the Order\/Judgment and decree dated 21st of\n                       February, 2009, passed by the Munsif II, Begusarai in\n                       Eviction Suit No. 12\/99\n                                        ....\n<\/pre>\n
                     RAMAKANT SINGH son of late Jagdish Singh, resident
\n                     of village Nipaniya Tola Singhpur,          Police Station
\n                     Phulwaria, Pargana: Malki, Sub. Division & Sub.Registry:
\n                     Teghra, District Begusarai, …\n<\/p>\n
                                                     …Defendant-Petitioner
\n                                              Versus
\n                     PRAMOD KUMAR GUPTA son of late Ramkhelawan
\n                     Gupta, resident of village Baro Bazar, Police Station
\n                     Phulwaria, Pargana: Malki, Sub. Division & Sub.Registry:
\n                     Teghra, District Begusarai, …\n<\/p>\n
                                                     …Plaintiff-Opposite Party<\/p>\n
                     For the Petitioner: Mr. Keshav Srivastava, Sr. Advocate
\n                                         Mr. Ved Prakash, Advocate
\n                     For the Opp.Party: Mr. M\/s RajivRanjan Sinha and
\n                                             Sushil Kumar, Advocates.\n<\/p>\n
                                  PRESENT
\n                     THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. RAVI RANJAN\n<\/p>\n
                                     ———–\n<\/p>\n
Dr. Ravi Ranjan,J.         This civil    revision filed under section 14(8) of<\/p>\n
                     the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Act,<\/p>\n
                     1982(hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”) is<\/p>\n
                     directed against the order\/judgment and decree dated 21st<\/p>\n
                     February, 2009, passed by the Munsif II, Begusarai<\/p>\n
                     directing the defendant-petitioner to deliver the vacant<\/p>\n
                     possession of the suit premises within sixty days to the<\/p>\n
                     plaintiff, otherwise the plaintiff would be at liberty to get<\/p>\n
                     the premises vacated by due process of law.<\/p>\n
                           2. The plaintiff-opposite party instituted Eviction<\/p>\n
                     Suit No. 12 of 1999 for eviction of the defendant-<\/p>\n
                     petitioner on the ground of bona fide personal
\n                   2<\/span><\/p>\n
requirement of the suit premises. The claim of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff, as set up in the plaint, is that the suit premises,<\/p>\n
which is land and house standing over the same as<\/p>\n
described in Schedule I of the plaint, was acquired by his<\/p>\n
father through a sale deed. After the death of his father<\/p>\n
there was partition in the family in the year 1990 upon<\/p>\n
which the suit property came in the share of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
and accordingly, he came in possession of the same. On<\/p>\n
the basis of a deed executed on 13.02.1991, the plaintiff<\/p>\n
inducted the defendant as a tenant in the premises for the<\/p>\n
purpose of opening a shop. However, subsequently, the<\/p>\n
petitioner started feeling personal requirement of the<\/p>\n
premises for business purpose as he wanted to open his<\/p>\n
own shop for maintaining his family. In the year 1996<\/p>\n
the plaintiff requested the defendant to look for some<\/p>\n
other alternative and hand over vacant possession of the<\/p>\n
suit premises. However, the defendant took it otherwise<\/p>\n
and stopped payment of rent. Subsequently, the<\/p>\n
defendant sent the rent by Money Order on 2-3<\/p>\n
occasions, but the plaintiff returned the same on the<\/p>\n
pretext that he wants vacant possession of the shop in<\/p>\n
question. In the meantime, certain disputes arose and the<\/p>\n
defendant moved before this Court by filing a writ<\/p>\n
petition and also an application before the Rent<\/p>\n
Controller, Begusarai, Teghara. On 10.08.1998 and<\/p>\n
16.09.1998 the plaintiff served legal notice, however, the
\n                   3<\/span><\/p>\n
suit premises was not vacated. Thereafter lastly, when on<\/p>\n
20.10.1999 the defendant refused to vacate the premises,<\/p>\n
the present eviction suit was filed.\n<\/p>\n
      3. The defendant filed written statement. Though<\/p>\n
he had admitted that he had taken the suit premises on<\/p>\n
rent and also a “Kirayanama” was executed, but he had<\/p>\n
denied that the plaintiff had any personal necessity of the<\/p>\n
rented premises. In fact, it was alleged that he only<\/p>\n
wanted enhancement of rent at the rate double            the<\/p>\n
existing one. When the defendant did not yield to the<\/p>\n
plaintiff for enhancement of the rent to the aforesaid<\/p>\n
extent, the present suit has been filed. It has been<\/p>\n
claimed in the written statement that the plaintiff<\/p>\n
possesses several shops at Baro Bazar as well as at<\/p>\n
Barauni, Lalit Narain Mishra Railway Market. That<\/p>\n
apart, it has been alleged that the plaintiff has a big<\/p>\n
residential building at Baro Bazar and has also a big<\/p>\n
commercial plot in front of Baro Post Office. It has<\/p>\n
further been alleged that apart from the rented shop in<\/p>\n
occupation of the defendant, the plaintiff possesses three<\/p>\n
other shops, which are vacant. The defendant further<\/p>\n
stated in the written statement that rent up to March 1998<\/p>\n
was handed over to the plaintiff, but later on, the plaintiff<\/p>\n
deliberately refused to accept the rent and forced the<\/p>\n
defendant to pay the same through Money Order,<\/p>\n
however, the plaintiff intentionally refused to accept the
\n                  4<\/span><\/p>\n
same. It has also been stated that the plaintiff had<\/p>\n
forcibly locked the door of the rented shop on<\/p>\n
10.09.1999, as a result of which the shop remained<\/p>\n
closed up to 14.03.2000 and in Cr.W.J.C. No. 410 of<\/p>\n
1999 filed by the defendant against such action of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff, the High Court while disposing of the writ<\/p>\n
petition observed that the defendant should not be<\/p>\n
evicted without following the procedure of law.<\/p>\n
Thereafter the shop was unlocked on 15.03.2000.<\/p>\n
      4. Altogether nine witnesses were examined on<\/p>\n
behalf of the plaintiff, whereas on behalf of the<\/p>\n
defendant twelve witnesses were examined. The trial<\/p>\n
court upon appreciation of the evidence recorded the<\/p>\n
finding that there existed relationship of landlord and<\/p>\n
tenant in between the parties and also that the plaintiff<\/p>\n
had bona fide personal requirement of the suit premises.<\/p>\n
It has also been held by the court below that no useful<\/p>\n
purpose would be served by partial eviction of the tenant<\/p>\n
from the suit premises.\n<\/p>\n
      5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and<\/p>\n
perused the records.\n<\/p>\n
      6. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner<\/p>\n
submitted that the averment in the plaint to the effect that<\/p>\n
the plaintiff had got the suit premises in partition creates<\/p>\n
a doubt regarding his title. Whether the suit premises<\/p>\n
belongs to the plaintiff or his brothers is doubtful.
\n                  5<\/span><\/p>\n
However, this issue has been dealt with in detail in<\/p>\n
paragraph 7 of the order\/judgment under challenge. The<\/p>\n
court below has discussed in detail and held that since in<\/p>\n
the written statement as well as in the evidence led on<\/p>\n
behalf of the defendant he himself accepted to be the<\/p>\n
tenant of the plaintiff the doubt being created at the time<\/p>\n
of argument would be of no help to the defendant-<\/p>\n
petitioner and, thus, it had been held that there existed a<\/p>\n
relationship of landlord and tenant in between the<\/p>\n
parties. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner<\/p>\n
could not point out any illegality in such finding.<\/p>\n
      7. Learned counsel contended that the plaintiff is<\/p>\n
not in personal need of the suit premises, as he is having<\/p>\n
other shops, residential house as well as commercial plot<\/p>\n
also. It is further contended that the plaintiff is also<\/p>\n
having a shop in the name and style of “Prem Shankar<\/p>\n
Sweets” near Barauni Railway Station and apart from<\/p>\n
that, the plaintiff had himself admitted that he has also<\/p>\n
another premises, in which he had inducted tenant,<\/p>\n
namely, “Kaushal”. However, on scrutiny of the<\/p>\n
evidence led on behalf of the parties the court concerned<\/p>\n
has come to the conclusion that the aforesaid shop in the<\/p>\n
name and style of “Prem Shankar Sweets” was in the<\/p>\n
name of the father of the plaintiff, however, after his<\/p>\n
death, the brother of the plaintiff is running the shop. It<\/p>\n
has come in the evidence of the defendant also that the
\n                   6<\/span><\/p>\n
brother and son of the plaintiff are sitting in that shop.<\/p>\n
That apart, it has been noted by the court below that no<\/p>\n
suggestion had been given to the witnesses examined on<\/p>\n
behalf of the plaintiff regarding the factum of any other<\/p>\n
shop being run by the plaintiff or the plaintiff is being<\/p>\n
engaged in any other employment.\n<\/p>\n
        8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite party<\/p>\n
submitted that from the evidence of the defendant itself,<\/p>\n
it would be clear that the plaintiff’s shop was being run<\/p>\n
by the brother and that was in the premises not owned by<\/p>\n
the family, rather the same had been settled by the<\/p>\n
Railways. On appreciation of evidence, it has been held<\/p>\n
by the court below that the defendant could not make out<\/p>\n
a case that the shop aforesaid belongs to the plaintiff<\/p>\n
himself. Even if the claim of the defendant that the<\/p>\n
plaintiff is having another premises rented out to some<\/p>\n
other person is taken to be true, it is well settled that the<\/p>\n
plaintiff has a right to choose one of them to satisfy his<\/p>\n
requirement. The defendant was not able to show that<\/p>\n
any other similar type of premises having similar area<\/p>\n
and other amenities and facility belonging to the plaintiff<\/p>\n
was vacant which could have satisfied the bona fide need<\/p>\n
of the plaintiff; whereas the plaintiff has specifically<\/p>\n
stated that he is not having any other suitable premises or<\/p>\n
shop.\n<\/p>\n
        9. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed
\n                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
reliance upon a decision rendered by a Bench of this<\/p>\n
Court in Deena Nath Prasad v. Smt. Roopa Devi,<\/a><\/p>\n
reported in 2010(1) Patna Law Journal Reports, 434.<\/p>\n
However, the aforesaid decision would be of no help to<\/p>\n
the petitioner, as he could not show that any vacant<\/p>\n
premises having similar area and condition belonging to<\/p>\n
the plaintiff was available for the required business of<\/p>\n
the plaintiff. That apart, learned counsel could not point<\/p>\n
out any illegality in the finding recorded by the court<\/p>\n
below holding that the plaintiff bona fide requires the<\/p>\n
suit premises for his own purpose.\n<\/p>\n
      10. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner<\/p>\n
submitted that the need or requirement of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
could have been fulfilled or satisfied by eviction of the<\/p>\n
defendant partially from one room in place of the entire<\/p>\n
premises having two rooms. This aspect of the matter<\/p>\n
has been dealt with by the court below in paragraph 13<\/p>\n
of the order\/judgment and it has been held that though<\/p>\n
there are two rooms, but ingress of the shop is from one<\/p>\n
side only, meaning thereby that if somebody wants to go<\/p>\n
in the second room he will have to go from the first shop<\/p>\n
itself as there is no other passage or way to approach the<\/p>\n
second room. It has been further observed that if some<\/p>\n
separate passage is provided for approach to the second<\/p>\n
room then the width of both the rooms\/shops would<\/p>\n
become 4-5 ft. rendering them unviable for any purpose.
\n                   8<\/span><\/p>\n
Thus, it has been held that no purpose would be served<\/p>\n
from partial eviction of the suit premises. Learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioner could not point out any error in<\/p>\n
the aforesaid finding of the court below.<\/p>\n
      11. Thus, upon consideration of the rival<\/p>\n
submissions and perusal of the record of the case, this<\/p>\n
Court finds no illegality in the order\/judgment under<\/p>\n
challenge warranting interference in its revisional<\/p>\n
jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
            12.As a result, this Civil Revision as well as<\/p>\n
I.A. No. 5728 of 2009 are dismissed. The interim relief<\/p>\n
granted earlier is hereby vacated. However, there would<\/p>\n
be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n                                  ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)\n\n\nPatna High Court,\nThe    21st day of July, 2010.\nSC \/ NAFR\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court Ramakant Singh vs Pramod Kumar Gupta on 21 July, 2010 Author: Ravi Ranjan Civi Revision No.703 of 2009 Against the Order\/Judgment and decree dated 21st of February, 2009, passed by the Munsif II, Begusarai in Eviction Suit No. 12\/99 …. RAMAKANT SINGH son of late Jagdish Singh, resident of village Nipaniya Tola […]<\/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":[8,26],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-26789","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-patna-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRamakant Singh vs Pramod Kumar Gupta on 21 July, 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\/ramakant-singh-vs-pramod-kumar-gupta-on-21-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramakant Singh vs Pramod Kumar Gupta on 21 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramakant-singh-vs-pramod-kumar-gupta-on-21-july-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=\"2010-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-06T01:57:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramakant-singh-vs-pramod-kumar-gupta-on-21-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramakant-singh-vs-pramod-kumar-gupta-on-21-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramakant Singh vs Pramod Kumar Gupta on 21 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-06T01:57:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramakant-singh-vs-pramod-kumar-gupta-on-21-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1742,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Patna High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramakant-singh-vs-pramod-kumar-gupta-on-21-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramakant-singh-vs-pramod-kumar-gupta-on-21-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramakant-singh-vs-pramod-kumar-gupta-on-21-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Ramakant Singh vs Pramod Kumar Gupta on 21 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-06T01:57:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramakant-singh-vs-pramod-kumar-gupta-on-21-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramakant-singh-vs-pramod-kumar-gupta-on-21-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramakant-singh-vs-pramod-kumar-gupta-on-21-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramakant Singh vs Pramod Kumar Gupta on 21 July, 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":"Ramakant Singh vs Pramod Kumar Gupta on 21 July, 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\/ramakant-singh-vs-pramod-kumar-gupta-on-21-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramakant Singh vs Pramod Kumar Gupta on 21 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramakant-singh-vs-pramod-kumar-gupta-on-21-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-06T01:57:25+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramakant-singh-vs-pramod-kumar-gupta-on-21-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramakant-singh-vs-pramod-kumar-gupta-on-21-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramakant Singh vs Pramod Kumar Gupta on 21 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-06T01:57:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramakant-singh-vs-pramod-kumar-gupta-on-21-july-2010"},"wordCount":1742,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Patna High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramakant-singh-vs-pramod-kumar-gupta-on-21-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramakant-singh-vs-pramod-kumar-gupta-on-21-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramakant-singh-vs-pramod-kumar-gupta-on-21-july-2010","name":"Ramakant Singh vs Pramod Kumar Gupta on 21 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-06T01:57:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramakant-singh-vs-pramod-kumar-gupta-on-21-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramakant-singh-vs-pramod-kumar-gupta-on-21-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramakant-singh-vs-pramod-kumar-gupta-on-21-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramakant Singh vs Pramod Kumar Gupta on 21 July, 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\/26789","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=26789"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26789\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26789"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26789"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26789"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}