{"id":31110,"date":"2002-01-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-01-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kedarnath-vs-mohan-lal-kesarwari-ors-on-10-january-2002"},"modified":"2015-07-01T14:59:56","modified_gmt":"2015-07-01T09:29:56","slug":"kedarnath-vs-mohan-lal-kesarwari-ors-on-10-january-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kedarnath-vs-mohan-lal-kesarwari-ors-on-10-january-2002","title":{"rendered":"Kedarnath vs Mohan Lal Kesarwari & Ors on 10 January, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Kedarnath vs Mohan Lal Kesarwari & Ors on 10 January, 2002<\/div>\n
Author: R Lahoti<\/div>\n
Bench: R.C. Lahoti, Brijesh Kumar<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 5109  of  1999\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nKEDARNATH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMOHAN LAL KESARWARI & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t10\/01\/2002\n\nBENCH:\nR.C. Lahoti & Brijesh Kumar\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
R.C. Lahoti, J.\n<\/p>\n
The landlord-appellant filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent
\nand for eviction against the tenant-respondents on the ground
\navailable under Clause (a) of sub-Section (2) of Section 20 of U.P.
\nUrban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act,
\n1972, hereinafter U.P. Urban Buildings Act, for short.\t A suit of the
\nnature filed by the appellant being triable by a court of small causes,
\nas provided by the U.P. Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1972\t was filed
\nin the Court of Small Causes, Allahabad.  On 9.8.1996, the suit came
\nto be decreed ex-parte.\t The decree directed the tenant-respondents to
\npay an amount of Rs.8500\/- as pre-suit arrears of rent and a further
\namount calculated at the rate of Rs.250\/- per month from the date of
\ninstitution of suit to the date of recovery of possession.  A decree for
\neviction was also passed.  The decree was put to execution and on
\n21.2.1998 the decree-holder obtained possession over the suit
\npremises with police help.  The court amin certified the delivery of
\npossession to the executing court.  On 26.2.1998, the tenant-
\nrespondents moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the
\nC.P.C. seeking setting aside of the ex-parte decree.  Neither the
\namount due under the decree was deposited nor an application was
\nfiled seeking direction of the court to give security for the
\nperformance of the decree in lieu of depositing the decretal amount.
\nOn 14.10.1998, arguments were heard on the application under Order
\n9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C..  The court appointed 16.10.1998 for orders.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt appears that during the course of hearing the appellant
\ndecree-holder pointed out to the court that the application   seeking
\nsetting aside of the ex-parte decree was not maintainable and was
\nliable to be dismissed in limine for non-compliance with proviso to
\nSection 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887
\n(hereinafter, ‘the PSCC Act’, for short).  On 15.10.1998, the tenant-
\nrespondents filed an application praying that they may be permitted to
\nfurnish security for payment of decretal amount.  The reason assigned
\nfor failure to deposit the amount due under the decree or to furnish
\nsecurity alongwith the application seeking setting aside of the ex-parte
\ndecree is somewhat oscillating.\t At one place at is stated that their
\nadvocate had never advised them to deposit the decretal amount as the
\nadvocate himself was not aware of the provision.  Then, at another
\nplace, it is stated that the rent was already paid to the landlord decree-
\nholder and there were no arrears required to be deposited.  At yet
\nanother place it is stated that their advocate had advised them that on
\nthe application seeking setting aside of the ex-parte decree being
\nallowed and the suit being restored to file, on the first date of hearing
\nthe tenant has to deposit the rent in arrears which would be done at
\nthat stage only.  Vide order dated 15.11.1998, the learned Judge,
\nSmall Causes, rejected the application filed by the tenant-respondent
\nforming an opinion that ignorance of law was not excusable and the
\napplication under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. filed without complying
\nwith proviso to Section 17 of the PSCC Act was not maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe tenant-respondents preferred a revision in the court of
\nAdditional District Judge, which was allowed. The learned Additional
\nDistrict Judge vide order dated 22.4.1999, condoned the delay in
\nmoving the application dated 15.10.1998 and directed the trial court to
\naccept\tsecurity as proposed and hear and decide the application under
\nOrder 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. on merits.  The abovesaid revisional
\norder was put in issue by the landlord-appellant by filing a writ
\npetition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution before the High
\nCourt, which has been rejected.\t The landlord has filed this appeal by
\nspecial leave.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. Gourab K. Banerji, the learned counsel for the appellant
\nhas made two submissions: firstly, that the proviso to Section 17 of
\nthe Act is mandatory in its character and non-compliance therewith
\ncannot be condoned; and secondly, assuming that the court has power
\nto condone the delay in making the deposit or furnishing the security
\non the principles deducible from Section 5 of the Limitation Act, even
\nthen no sufficient cause was made out for belated offer to make
\ncompliance and in as much as the landlord has already secured
\npossession of the premises, the tenant-respondents’ application was
\nliable to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is not disputed at the Bar that such a suit as was filed by the
\nlandlord-appellant is, in the State of U.P., to be  heard and disposed of
\nby a court of small causes   and hence would be governed by the
\nprovisions of  the PSCC Act.  Section 17 thereof provides as under:\n<\/p>\n
“7.\tApplication of the Code of Civil
\nProcedure.-   (1) The procedure prescribed in the
\nCode of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall save in so far
\nas is otherwise provided by that Code or by this
\nAct, be the procedure followed in a Court of Small
\nCauses in all suits cognizable by it and in all
\nproceedings arising out of such suits:\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided that an applicant for an order to set
\naside a decree passed ex parte or for a review of
\njudgment shall, at the time of presenting the
\napplication, either deposit in the Court the amount
\ndue from him under the decree or in pursuance of
\nthe judgment, or give such security for the
\nperformance of the decree or compliance with the
\njudgment as the Court may, on a previous
\napplication made by him in this behalf, have
\ndirected.\n<\/p>\n
(2) Where a person has become liable as surety
\nunder the Proviso to sub-section (1), the security
\nmay be realized in manner provided by Section
\n145 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.”\n<\/p>\n
It is relevant to note that the proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 17
\nhas undergone a material change through an amendment brought in by
\nAct No.IX  of 1935.  Earlier there were the words- “security to the
\nsatisfaction of the Court for the performance of the decree or
\ncompliance with the judgment, as the court may direct” which have
\nbeen deleted and substituted by the present words – “such security for
\nthe performance of the decree or compliance with the judgment as the
\nCourt may, on a previous application made by him in this behalf, have
\ndirected”.  The Statement of Objects and Reasons for the 1935
\namendment was set out as under:\n<\/p>\n
“The Act is designed to remove certain doubts
\nwhich have arisen in the interpretation of the
\nproviso to sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the
\nProvincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887.  As the
\nsection stands, an applicant is required to give
\nsecurity to the satisfaction of the Court at the time
\nof presenting his application.\tIt follows that, in
\norder to ascertain what security satisfies the Court,
\nthe applicant must already have made an
\napplication in that behalf.  There is some doubt
\nwhether the words “as the Court may direct” apply
\nto the deposit of the whole decretal amount as well
\nas to the giving of approved security.\tThe Act is
\nintended to make it clear that the preliminary
\napplication to ascertain what security will satisfy
\nthe Court must be made and decided before the
\nsubstantive application for the order to seet aside
\nthe decree, and that it always is open to the
\napplicant to adopt the alternative course of
\ndepositing the total decretal amount.  (Vide
\nStatement of Objects and Reasons, Gazette of
\nIndia, 1935, Pt. V, p.90).”\n<\/p>\n
\t The object behind establishing Small Cause Courts conferred
\nwith jurisdiction to try summarily such specified category of cases
\nwhich need to be and are capable of being disposed of by adopting
\nsummary procedure of trial is to secure an expeditious disposal and to
\ncurtail the lengthy procedure of litigation.  Excepting an order for
\ncompensatory costs  in respect of false or vexatious claims or
\ndefences or an order imposing fine or directing the arrest or detention
\nin the civil prison of any person (except where such arrest or detention
\nis in execution of a decree), orders and decrees of courts of small
\ncauses are not appealable: they are only revisable by the High Court
\n(or by District Court under Section 115 of CPC as amended in its
\napplication to State of U.P.).\tThe jurisdiction to entertain and hear an
\napplication to set aside a decree passed ex-parte or for a review of
\njudgment by courts of small causes is sought to be qualified and
\nnarrow down by imposing condition as to deposit or giving security
\nfor performance or compliance by enacting proviso to sub-section (1).
\nSuch a provision fits in the scheme of the PSCC\t Act.  Although there
\nis no authoritative pronouncement by this Court (none brought to our
\nnotice) interpreting the nature and scope of the proviso however, the
\nlearned counsel for the appellant brought to our notice a number of
\ndecisions delivered by the High Courts of Allahabad, Oudh, Madras,
\nOrissa,\t Rajasthan and Lahore which have taken the view that the
\nproviso is mandatory and non-compliance therewith   would entail
\ndismissal of the application because such non-compliance   cannot be
\ncondoned or overlooked by the court.\tThey are, to wit : Mohammad
\nRamzan Khan Vs. Khubi Khan  AIR 1938 Lahore 18 (DB), Murari
\nLal Vs. Mohammad Yasin\tAIR 1939 Allahabad 46, Mt. Shikhani
\nVs. Bishambhar Nath  AIR 1941 Oudh 103, Jagdamba Prasad & Ors.
\nVs. Ram Das Singh & Anr.  AIR 1943 Allahabad 288, Roshan Lal
\nVs. Brij Lal Amba Lal Shah- AIR 1944 Oudh 104, Vembu Amal Vs.
\nEsakkia Pillai\tAIR 1949 Madras 419, Khetra Dolai Vs. Mohan
\nBissoyi\t AIR 1961 Orissa 37, and Dhanna Vs. Arjun Lal  AIR 1963
\nRajasthan 240.\tAs the present case arises from the State of Uttar
\nPradesh, the learned counsel for the appellant cited a series of
\ndecisions delivered by Allahabad High Court so as to show the view
\nof the law being consistently taken there.  These are : Krishan Kumar
\nVs. Hakim Mohd.\t 1978 ALJ 738, Sharif Vs. Suresh Chand & Ors.
\n1979 AWC 256, Roop Basant Vs. Durga Prasad & Anr.  1983 1
\nARC 565, Mohd. Islam Vs. Faquir Mohammad  1985 1 ARC 54,
\nKrishan Chandra Seth Vs. Dr. K.P. Agarwal & Anr. – 1988 1 ARC
\n310, Mamta Sharma Vs. Hari Shankar  Srivastava & Ors.- 1988 1
\nARC 341, Mohd. Yasin Vs. Jai Prakash  1988 2 ARC 575,
\nPurshottam Vs. Special Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura & Ors.
\n1991 2 ARC 129, Ram Chandra (deceased L.Rs.) & Ors. Vs. IXth
\nAdditional District Judge, Varanasi & Ors.- AIR 1991 Allahabad 223,
\nSagir Khan Vs. The District Judge, Farrukhabad & Ors. – 1996 27
\nALR 540, Mohammad Nasem Vs. Third Additional District Judge,
\nFaizabad & Ors.\t AIR 1998 Allahabad 125, and Beena Khare Vs.
\nVIIIth Additional District Judge, Allahabad & Anr.  2000 2 ARC\n<\/p>\n
616.<\/p>\n
\tThe learned counsel for the respondent brought to our notice
\nSurendra Nath Mittal Vs. Dayanand Swarup and Anr.  AIR 1987
\nAllahabad 132, Chigurupalli Suryanarayana Vs. The
\nAmadalavalasa Co-operative Agricultural Industrial Society Ltd.
\nAIR 1975 A.P. 196 and Tarachand Hirachand Porwal Vs. Durappa
\nTavanappa Patravali  AIR 1943 Bombay 237.  All the three
\ndecisions are single Bench decisions.  Suffice it to observe that the
\nfirst two decisions are more or less ad hoc decisions which do not
\nnotice other decisions and the general trend of judicial opinion.  The
\nview propounded therein does not appeal to us.\tThe Bombay decision
\ndoes not lay down any general proposition of law and proceeds on its
\nown facts.\n<\/p>\n
A bare reading of the provision shows that the legislature have
\nchosen to couch the language of the proviso in a mandatory form and
\nwe see no reason to interpret, construe and hold the nature of the
\nproviso as directory.  An application seeking to set aside an ex-parte
\ndecree passed by a Court of Small Causes or for a review of its
\njudgment must be accompanied by a deposit in the court of the
\namount due from the applicant under the decree or in pursuance of the
\njudgment.  The provision as to deposit can be dispensed with by the
\ncourt in its discretion subject to a previous application by the
\napplicant seeking direction of the court for leave to furnish security
\nand the nature thereof.\t The proviso does not provide for the extent of
\ntime by which such application for dispensation may be filed. We
\nthink that it  may be filed at any time up to the time of presentation of
\napplication for setting aside ex-parte decree or for review and the
\nCourt may treat it as a previous application.  The obligation of the
\napplicant is to move a previous application for dispensation.  It is then
\nfor the court to make a prompt order.  The delay on the part of the
\ncourt in passing an appropriate order would not be held against the
\napplicant because none can be made to suffer for the fault of the court.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the case at hand, the application for setting aside ex parte
\ndecree was not accompanied by deposit in the court of the amount due
\nand payable by the applicant under the decree.\tThe applicant also did
\nnot move any application for dispensing with deposit and seeking
\nleave of the court for furnishing such security for the performance of
\nthe decree as the court may have directed.  The application for setting
\naside the decree was therefore incompetent.  It could not have been
\nentertained and allowed.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe trial court was therefore right in rejecting the application.
\nThe District Judge in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction could not
\nhave interfered with the order of the trial court.  The illegality in
\nexercise of jurisdiction by the District Court disposing of the revision
\npetition was brought to notice of the High Court and it was a fit case
\nwhere the High Court ought to have in exercise of its supervisory
\njurisdiction  set aside the order of the District  Court by holding the
\napplication filed by the respondent as incompetent and hence not
\nentertainable.\tWe need not examine the other question whether a
\nsufficient cause for condoning the delay in moving the application for
\nleave of the court to furnish security for performance was made out or
\nnot and whether such an application moved at a highly belated stage
\nand hence not being a ‘previous application’ was at all entertainable
\nor not.\n<\/p>\n
The appeal is allowed.\tThe impugned orders of the District
\nCourt and the High Court respectively dated 22.4.1999 and 18.5.1999
\nare set aside and the order of the trial court dated 15.11.1998 is
\nrestored.  No order as to the costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t    ……….J
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t( R.C. LAHOTI )<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t…J
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t( BRIJESH KUMAR )
\nJanuary 10, 2002<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Kedarnath vs Mohan Lal Kesarwari & Ors on 10 January, 2002 Author: R Lahoti Bench: R.C. Lahoti, Brijesh Kumar CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5109 of 1999 PETITIONER: KEDARNATH Vs. RESPONDENT: MOHAN LAL KESARWARI & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10\/01\/2002 BENCH: R.C. Lahoti & Brijesh Kumar JUDGMENT: R.C. Lahoti, J. The landlord-appellant […]<\/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-31110","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nKedarnath vs Mohan Lal Kesarwari & Ors on 10 January, 2002 - 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\/kedarnath-vs-mohan-lal-kesarwari-ors-on-10-january-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kedarnath vs Mohan Lal Kesarwari & Ors on 10 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kedarnath-vs-mohan-lal-kesarwari-ors-on-10-january-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-01-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-01T09:29:56+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kedarnath-vs-mohan-lal-kesarwari-ors-on-10-january-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kedarnath-vs-mohan-lal-kesarwari-ors-on-10-january-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kedarnath vs Mohan Lal Kesarwari & Ors on 10 January, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-01-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-01T09:29:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kedarnath-vs-mohan-lal-kesarwari-ors-on-10-january-2002\"},\"wordCount\":2381,\"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\\\/kedarnath-vs-mohan-lal-kesarwari-ors-on-10-january-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kedarnath-vs-mohan-lal-kesarwari-ors-on-10-january-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kedarnath-vs-mohan-lal-kesarwari-ors-on-10-january-2002\",\"name\":\"Kedarnath vs Mohan Lal Kesarwari & Ors on 10 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-01-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-01T09:29:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kedarnath-vs-mohan-lal-kesarwari-ors-on-10-january-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kedarnath-vs-mohan-lal-kesarwari-ors-on-10-january-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kedarnath-vs-mohan-lal-kesarwari-ors-on-10-january-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kedarnath vs Mohan Lal Kesarwari & Ors on 10 January, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Kedarnath vs Mohan Lal Kesarwari & Ors on 10 January, 2002 - 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\/kedarnath-vs-mohan-lal-kesarwari-ors-on-10-january-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kedarnath vs Mohan Lal Kesarwari & Ors on 10 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kedarnath-vs-mohan-lal-kesarwari-ors-on-10-january-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-01-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-01T09:29:56+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kedarnath-vs-mohan-lal-kesarwari-ors-on-10-january-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kedarnath-vs-mohan-lal-kesarwari-ors-on-10-january-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kedarnath vs Mohan Lal Kesarwari & Ors on 10 January, 2002","datePublished":"2002-01-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-01T09:29:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kedarnath-vs-mohan-lal-kesarwari-ors-on-10-january-2002"},"wordCount":2381,"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\/kedarnath-vs-mohan-lal-kesarwari-ors-on-10-january-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kedarnath-vs-mohan-lal-kesarwari-ors-on-10-january-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kedarnath-vs-mohan-lal-kesarwari-ors-on-10-january-2002","name":"Kedarnath vs Mohan Lal Kesarwari & Ors on 10 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-01-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-01T09:29:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kedarnath-vs-mohan-lal-kesarwari-ors-on-10-january-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kedarnath-vs-mohan-lal-kesarwari-ors-on-10-january-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kedarnath-vs-mohan-lal-kesarwari-ors-on-10-january-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kedarnath vs Mohan Lal Kesarwari & Ors on 10 January, 2002"}]},{"@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\/31110","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=31110"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31110\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=31110"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=31110"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=31110"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}