{"id":35317,"date":"2011-10-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-10-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ishabhai-jivabhai-jafari-vs-jain-enterprises-on-19-october-2011"},"modified":"2015-10-03T18:33:02","modified_gmt":"2015-10-03T13:03:02","slug":"shri-ishabhai-jivabhai-jafari-vs-jain-enterprises-on-19-october-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ishabhai-jivabhai-jafari-vs-jain-enterprises-on-19-october-2011","title":{"rendered":"Shri Ishabhai Jivabhai Jafari vs Jain Enterprises on 19 October, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Shri Ishabhai Jivabhai Jafari vs Jain Enterprises on 19 October, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: S.A. Bobde, M.N. Gilani<\/div>\n
                                                        1\n\n                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                             NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                        \n                             Letters Patent Appeal No. 116\/2011 in\n\n\n\n\n                                                                \n                                   Writ Petition No. 276\/2011\n\n            Sadruddin Jivabhai Jafari,\n            aged 53 years, Occ. Service, thr. his\n            constituted power of attorney holder\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n            Shri Ishabhai Jivabhai Jafari r\/o Laxmibai\n            Ward, Gondia, Tq.Dist. Gondia.                                      .....APPELLANT\n\n                                   ...V E R S U S...\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n     1.     Jain Enterprises, thr. its Proprietor\n                            \n            Mr. Sunilkumar Ratanchand Jain,\n            aged 47 years, Occ. Business.\n                           \n     2.     Sunilkumar Ratanchand Jain,\n            aged 47 years, Occ. Business,\n\n            Both r\/o Laxmibai Ward, Gondia,\n      \n\n            Tq. Dist. Gondia, thr. his power of\n            attorney holder Mohan s\/o Ladharam\n   \n\n\n\n            Prithiani, r\/o Sindhi Colony, Gondia,\n            Dist. Gondia.\n\n     3.     Pramodkumar s\/o Ratanchand Jain,\n\n\n\n\n\n            aged about 45 years, Occ. Business,\n            r\/o Civil Line, Gondia, Tq. Dist. Gondia.                           ....RESPONDENTS\n\n     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n     Mr. Atul Vastani with Mr. D. V. Mahajan, Advocate for appellant.\n\n\n\n\n\n     Mr. Anup Parihar, Advocate for respondents.\n     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n     CORAM:- S. A. BOBDE & M. N. GILANI, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                                               th
\n      Date of Reserving the Judgment:      27    September, 2011<\/p>\n
                                              th
\n      Date of Pronouncing the Judgment: 19    October, 2011<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:52:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  2<\/span><\/p>\n
     ORAL JUDGMENT (Per:- S. A. Bobde, J.)<\/p>\n
     1.               Heard.  Admit.  Taken up for final hearing by consent of the <\/p>\n
     parties.\n<\/p>\n
     2.               This   appeal   is   preferred   by   landlord   against   order   of   the <\/p>\n
     learned Single Judge holding that the lower appellate Court was justified in <\/p>\n
     holding that the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil <\/p>\n
     Procedure was not maintainable but remanding the matter to the District <\/p>\n
     Judge, Gondia to decide the appeal in accordance with law.  The suit filed <\/p>\n
     by the appellant before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Gondia for eviction, <\/p>\n
     possession   and   arrears   of   rent   was   proceeded  ex   parte  and   eventually <\/p>\n
     decreed.  The tenants preferred an appeal against the ex parte decree along <\/p>\n
     with an application for condonation of delay.  They also filed an application <\/p>\n
     under Order IX Rule 13 of the C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte decree.\n<\/p>\n
     The   District   Judge,   Gondia   dismissed   the   application   for   condonation   of <\/p>\n
     delay in filing the appeal against the ex parte decree and the civil suit was <\/p>\n
     also dismissed.  Thereafter, the trial Court i.e. Civil Judge Senior Division, <\/p>\n
     Gondia dismissed the tenant’s application under Order IX Rule 13 of the <\/p>\n
     C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte decree.\n<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:52:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
     3.                The tenants, therefore, preferred Misc. Civil Appeal before <\/p>\n
     the   District   Judge,   Gondia   against   the   order   rejecting   their   application <\/p>\n
     under   Order   IX   Rule   13.     The   appellant-landlord   raised   a   preliminary <\/p>\n
     objection   to   the   maintainability   of   this   appeal   on   the   ground   that   after <\/p>\n
     dismissal of the regular appeal against the ex parte decree, the application <\/p>\n
     under Order IX Rule 13 of the C.P.C. was bound to be dismissed in view of <\/p>\n
     explanation to Order IX Rule 13 and, therefore, the Misc. Civil Appeal under <\/p>\n
     Order XLIII Rule 1-A of the C.P.C. against the order rejecting application <\/p>\n
     under Order IX Rule 13 was itself not tenable.\n<\/p>\n
     4.                The learned District Judge hearing appeal under Order XLIII <\/p>\n
     Rule 1-A against rejection of the application under Order IX Rule 13, held <\/p>\n
     that application under Order IX Rule 13 was not maintainable since ex parte <\/p>\n
     judgment   and   order   had   been   dismissed   and   not   withdrawn   as <\/p>\n
     contemplated   by   explanation   to   Order   IX   Rule   13.     The   District   Judge, <\/p>\n
     however, also held that since the application under Order IX Rule 13 was <\/p>\n
     not tenable, the appeal against rejection of that application was also not <\/p>\n
     tenable.  The explanation to Order IX Rule 13 of the C.P.C. reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
            “Order IX Rule 13<\/p>\n
            13. Setting aside decree ex parte against defendant- In any case
\n            in which a decree is passed ex parte against a defendant, he may
\n            apply to the Court by which the decree was passed for an order to  <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:52:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
           set it aside; and it he satisfies the Court that the summons was  <\/p>\n
           not duly served, or that he was prevented by any sufficient cause
\n           from   appearing   when   the   suit   was   called   on   for   hearing,   the  <\/p>\n
           Court shall make an order setting aside the decree as against him
\n           upon such terms as to costs, payment into Court or otherwise as
\n           it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 Provided that where the decree is of such a nature that it
\n           cannot be set aside as against such defendant only it may be set
\n           aside as against all or any of the other defendants also:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 Provided   further   that   no   Court   shall   set   aside   a   decree  <\/p>\n
           passed   ex  parte  merely  on  the  ground   that  there  has  been   an
\n           irregularity in the service of summons, if it is satisfied that the  <\/p>\n
           defendant had notice of the date of hearing and had sufficient
\n           time to appear and answer the plaintiff’s claim.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 Explanation-Where   there   has   been   an   appeal   against   a  <\/p>\n
           decree passed ex parte under this rule, and the appeal has been  <\/p>\n
           disposed   of   on   any   ground   other   than   the   ground   that   the
\n           appellant   has   withdrawn   the   appeal,   no   application   shall   lie
\n           under this rule for setting aside that ex parte decree.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                       Order XLIII Rule 1-A of the C.P.C. which is relevant reads as <\/p>\n
     follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           “Order XLIII Rule 1-A
\n           1-A. Right to challenge non-appealable orders in appeal against
\n           decrees-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (1) Where any order is made under this Code against a party  <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:52:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    5<\/span><\/p>\n
            and thereupon any judgment is pronounced against such party  <\/p>\n
            and a decree is drawn up, such party may, in an appeal against
\n            the decree, contend that such order should not have been made  <\/p>\n
            and the judgment should not have been pronounced.
\n            (2) In   an   appeal   against   a   decree   passed   in   a   suit   after
\n            recording a compromise or refusing to record a compromise, it  <\/p>\n
            shall be open to the appellant to contest the decree on the ground
\n            that the compromise should, or should not, have been recorded.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                       From a plain reading of the explanation to Order IX Rule 13, <\/p>\n
     it is obvious that an application for setting aside an ex parte decree will not <\/p>\n
     lie where an appeal has also been filed against that very decree and has <\/p>\n
     been   disposed   of   on   any   grounds   other   than   the   fact   that   it   has   been <\/p>\n
     withdrawn.  Therefore, in the writ petition filed by the tenants, the learned <\/p>\n
     Single Judge has rightly held that the finding of the learned District Judge <\/p>\n
     to that effect is correct.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     5.                However, as regards the tenability of the appeal against the <\/p>\n
     order rejecting the application under Order IX rule 13 of the C.P.C. it is <\/p>\n
     equally obvious that the learned District Judge was wrong in holding the <\/p>\n
     same to be  not maintainable  merely because  application  under  Order IX <\/p>\n
     Rule   13   of   the   C.P.C.   was   found   to   be   not   maintainable.     A   Judgment <\/p>\n
     Debtor   whose   application   under   Order   IX   Rule   13   for   setting   aside   the <\/p>\n
     dismissal of a suit has been rejected is entitled to prefer an appeal and the <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:52:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    6<\/span><\/p>\n
     appeal cannot be dismissed as not tenable merely because the application <\/p>\n
     under   Order   IX   Rule   13  has   been   rejected   as   not   tenable.     The   learned <\/p>\n
     Single Judge quite rightly observed in the judgment that the District Judge <\/p>\n
     ought not to have held that the appeal before him was not tenable.\n<\/p>\n
     6.                Thus,   there   is   no   reason   why   the   appellant-tenant   should <\/p>\n
     raise   any   grievance   about   these   findings   of   the   learned   Single   Judge.\n<\/p>\n
     However, the learned Single Judge has remanded the matter back to the <\/p>\n
     appellate   Court   for   deciding   the   appeal,   in   accordance   with   law.     The <\/p>\n
     appellant,   aggrieved   by   that   finding   has   preferred   this   Letters   Patent <\/p>\n
     Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     7.                  Having considered the matter, we are of the view that the <\/p>\n
     remand of the matter to the appellate Court was not necessary since the <\/p>\n
     learned Single Judge had come to the conclusion that the finding of the <\/p>\n
     learned District Judge that the appeal was not tenable was wrong.   The <\/p>\n
     learned Single Judge having held that the appeal was tenable and that the <\/p>\n
     order in appeal was otherwise justified, it would have been proper for the <\/p>\n
     learned single Judge to hold that the application under Order IX Rule 13 of <\/p>\n
     the C.P.C. was rightly rejected as not tenable.   The order of the remand <\/p>\n
     results   in   sending   the   matter   back   to   the   appellate   Court   only   for   the <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:52:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                            7<\/span><\/p>\n
     purpose of rendering a finding that the appeal is tenable.   This was not <\/p>\n
     necessary.\n<\/p>\n
                    In this view of the matter, we set aside only the direction of <\/p>\n
     the learned Single Judge remanding the matter back to appellate Court.  In <\/p>\n
     our view, the order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be upheld and <\/p>\n
     the  order of  the  remand to the  lower appellate Court is  liable to be set <\/p>\n
     aside.\n<\/p>\n
                    Order accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
                    The L. P. A. stands disposed of.  No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                               JUDGE                                   JUDGE\n      \n   \n\n\n\n     kahale\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                 ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:52:02 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Shri Ishabhai Jivabhai Jafari vs Jain Enterprises on 19 October, 2011 Bench: S.A. Bobde, M.N. Gilani 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No. 116\/2011 in Writ Petition No. 276\/2011 Sadruddin Jivabhai Jafari, aged 53 years, Occ. Service, thr. his constituted power of […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-35317","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShri Ishabhai Jivabhai Jafari vs Jain Enterprises on 19 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ishabhai-jivabhai-jafari-vs-jain-enterprises-on-19-october-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri Ishabhai Jivabhai Jafari vs Jain Enterprises on 19 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ishabhai-jivabhai-jafari-vs-jain-enterprises-on-19-october-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-10-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-03T13:03:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-ishabhai-jivabhai-jafari-vs-jain-enterprises-on-19-october-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-ishabhai-jivabhai-jafari-vs-jain-enterprises-on-19-october-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri Ishabhai Jivabhai Jafari vs Jain Enterprises on 19 October, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-03T13:03:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-ishabhai-jivabhai-jafari-vs-jain-enterprises-on-19-october-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1307,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-ishabhai-jivabhai-jafari-vs-jain-enterprises-on-19-october-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-ishabhai-jivabhai-jafari-vs-jain-enterprises-on-19-october-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-ishabhai-jivabhai-jafari-vs-jain-enterprises-on-19-october-2011\",\"name\":\"Shri Ishabhai Jivabhai Jafari vs Jain Enterprises on 19 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-03T13:03:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-ishabhai-jivabhai-jafari-vs-jain-enterprises-on-19-october-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-ishabhai-jivabhai-jafari-vs-jain-enterprises-on-19-october-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-ishabhai-jivabhai-jafari-vs-jain-enterprises-on-19-october-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri Ishabhai Jivabhai Jafari vs Jain Enterprises on 19 October, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Shri Ishabhai Jivabhai Jafari vs Jain Enterprises on 19 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ishabhai-jivabhai-jafari-vs-jain-enterprises-on-19-october-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri Ishabhai Jivabhai Jafari vs Jain Enterprises on 19 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ishabhai-jivabhai-jafari-vs-jain-enterprises-on-19-october-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-10-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-03T13:03:02+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ishabhai-jivabhai-jafari-vs-jain-enterprises-on-19-october-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ishabhai-jivabhai-jafari-vs-jain-enterprises-on-19-october-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri Ishabhai Jivabhai Jafari vs Jain Enterprises on 19 October, 2011","datePublished":"2011-10-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-03T13:03:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ishabhai-jivabhai-jafari-vs-jain-enterprises-on-19-october-2011"},"wordCount":1307,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ishabhai-jivabhai-jafari-vs-jain-enterprises-on-19-october-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ishabhai-jivabhai-jafari-vs-jain-enterprises-on-19-october-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ishabhai-jivabhai-jafari-vs-jain-enterprises-on-19-october-2011","name":"Shri Ishabhai Jivabhai Jafari vs Jain Enterprises on 19 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-10-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-03T13:03:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ishabhai-jivabhai-jafari-vs-jain-enterprises-on-19-october-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ishabhai-jivabhai-jafari-vs-jain-enterprises-on-19-october-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ishabhai-jivabhai-jafari-vs-jain-enterprises-on-19-october-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri Ishabhai Jivabhai Jafari vs Jain Enterprises on 19 October, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35317","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=35317"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35317\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=35317"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=35317"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=35317"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}