{"id":3591,"date":"2009-08-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paramjit-kaur-vs-amarjit-singh-jeet-singh-and-on-25-august-2009"},"modified":"2015-05-12T00:41:47","modified_gmt":"2015-05-11T19:11:47","slug":"paramjit-kaur-vs-amarjit-singh-jeet-singh-and-on-25-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paramjit-kaur-vs-amarjit-singh-jeet-singh-and-on-25-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"Paramjit Kaur vs Amarjit Singh @ Jeet Singh And … on 25 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Paramjit Kaur vs Amarjit Singh @ Jeet Singh And … on 25 August, 2009<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA\n              AT CHANDIGARH\n\n\n\n\n                                   Civil Revision No. 1168 of 2005\n                                   Date of Decision : August 25, 2009\n\n\n\nParamjit Kaur\n                                                         ....Petitioner\n                               Versus\n\nAmarjit Singh @ Jeet Singh and another\n                                                     .....Respondents\n\n\nCORAM :      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN\n\nPresent :    Mr. B.S. Bhasaur, Advocate\n             for the petitioner.\n\n             Mr. P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate\n             for respondent No.1.\n\nT.P.S. MANN, J.\n<\/pre>\n
             Civil Suit No.110 dated 16.5.1998 was filed by Amarjit<\/p>\n
Singh @ Jeet Singh, respondent No.1 herein, against Paramjit Kaur<\/p>\n
and others. It was decreed ex parte on 20.5.1999. On 21.7.1999, an<\/p>\n
application was filed by Paramjit Kaur, petitioner herein, and her<\/p>\n
husband Surjit Singh, respondent No.2 herein, under Order IX Rule 13<\/p>\n
of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte decree<\/p>\n
dated 20.5.1999 on the ground that they were never served in the suit<\/p>\n
filed by Amarjit Singh nor they knew about the same. Reply to the<\/p>\n
application was submitted by Amarjit Singh that the pendency of his<\/p>\n
suit was well within the knowledge of the defendants. Moreover, the<\/p>\n
application was time barred. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of<\/p>\n
the application.\n<\/p>\n
 Civil Revision No. 1168 of 2005                                     -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
            On 20.8.1999, learned trial Court framed the following<\/p>\n
issues:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            “1.    Whether the application under Order IX Rule<\/p>\n
                   13 C.P.C. is within time ? OPA.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            2.     Whether there are sufficient grounds to set<\/p>\n
                   aside the ex parte judgment and decree<\/p>\n
                   passed in Civil Suit No. 110 of 16.5.1998<\/p>\n
                   decided on 20.5.1999 titled as ‘Amarjit Singh<\/p>\n
                   Versus Paramjit and others’ ? OPA.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            3.     Relief.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going<\/p>\n
through the evidence, learned trial Court held that the pendency of the<\/p>\n
civil suit filed by Amarjit Singh was in the knowledge of the defendants<\/p>\n
on 5.6.1998 when Amarjit Singh filed reply to an application of Paramjit<\/p>\n
Kaur under Order I Rule 10 of the Code in another suit bearing No.124<\/p>\n
dated 19.5.1998 titled ‘Amarjit Singh Vs. Raj Singh and others’ wherein<\/p>\n
he categorically disclosed that Civil Suit No.110 dated 16.5.1998 filed<\/p>\n
by him was pending for 14.6.1998 and he had obtained a stay order<\/p>\n
against the defendants. As the defendants knew about the pendency of<\/p>\n
the suit, the application filed by them on 21.7.1999 for setting aside ex<\/p>\n
parte decree dated 20.5.1999 was time barred. Accordingly, the<\/p>\n
application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code was dismissed.
\n Civil Revision No. 1168 of 2005                                        -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
            Aggrieved of the order passed by the learned trial Court,<\/p>\n
both Paramjit Kaur-petitioner and her husband Surjit Singh-respondent<\/p>\n
No.2 filed an appeal but the same was also dismissed by the lower<\/p>\n
appellate Court on 16.11.2004. Still not satisfied, Paramjit Kaur is now<\/p>\n
before this Court in a revision filed under Section 115 of the Code.<\/p>\n
            Learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that<\/p>\n
neither any summon nor any registered letter was served upon the<\/p>\n
petitioner and her husband in Civil Suit No.110 dated 16.5.1998 filed by<\/p>\n
Amarjit Singh. Inspite of the fact that Amarjit Singh knew that she and<\/p>\n
her husband were residing at Kothey Ram Sar, near Drain Bridge, Baja<\/p>\n
Khana Road, Barnala, he described them to be residents of Barnala in<\/p>\n
the suit. It was done with the sole purpose of getting an ex parte decree<\/p>\n
in his favour against the petitioner and her husband. The petitioner and<\/p>\n
her husband learnt about the ex parte decree a day before they filed<\/p>\n
the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code and then they<\/p>\n
contacted their Pairokar asking him to obtain information regarding the<\/p>\n
decree. After being informed about the passing of the decree on<\/p>\n
20.5.1999, they applied for getting certified copy of the decree. Going<\/p>\n
through the decree, the petitioner and her husband came to know that<\/p>\n
Amarjit Singh had obtained the ex parte decree as a result, wherefore,<\/p>\n
the earlier judgment and decree dated 23.10.1996 obtained by them<\/p>\n
had been declared as null and void. Accordingly, it was prayed that the<\/p>\n
revision be accepted, impugned judgments passed by the learned<\/p>\n
Courts below be set aside and the application under Order IX Rule 13<\/p>\n
of the Code be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
 Civil Revision No. 1168 of 2005                                       -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
             Learned counsel for contesting respondent No.1 had<\/p>\n
argued that the petitioner and her husband Surjit Singh were aware of<\/p>\n
the suit filed by him. Thrice, they refused to accept the registered<\/p>\n
letters. They were served through publication in a daily newspaper on<\/p>\n
31.10.1998 and when they did not appear on 3.11.1998, they were<\/p>\n
proceeded against ex parte. Respondent No.1 had filed Civil Suit<\/p>\n
No.124 dated 19.5.1998 against Raj Singh and others wherein Paramjit<\/p>\n
Kaur-petitioner filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code<\/p>\n
so as to be impleaded as a party-defendant. In his reply dated 5.6.1998<\/p>\n
to the said application, respondent No.1 had categorically mentioned<\/p>\n
that he had filed the present suit, i.e. Civil Suit No.110 dated 6.5.1998<\/p>\n
against the petitioner and her husband and wherein he had obtained a<\/p>\n
stay order against them. As such, the petitioner and her husband were<\/p>\n
well aware of the present suit and, therefore, it did not lie in their mouth<\/p>\n
to now plead that they had no knowledge about the same. It was also<\/p>\n
submitted that though the petitioner and her husband were claiming in<\/p>\n
their application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code that they were<\/p>\n
residing at Kothey Ram Sar, near Drain Bridge, Baja Khana Road,<\/p>\n
Barnala yet they were residents of Barnala and, therefore, described as<\/p>\n
such in the present suit. Even, while filing their application under Order<\/p>\n
IX Rule 13 of the Code, the petitioner had supported her averments by<\/p>\n
filing an affidavit, wherein she mentioned herself to be resident of<\/p>\n
Barnala. Again, in her application under Section 151 C.P.C. moved<\/p>\n
before the learned trial Court for the stay of the operation of the ex<\/p>\n
parte decree and also in the affidavit in support thereof, she described<\/p>\n
herself to be resident of Barnala. As the petitioner and her husband<\/p>\n
came to know on 5.6.1998 about the pendency of the suit when
\n Civil Revision No. 1168 of 2005                                    -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
respondent No.1 had filed his reply to the application under Order I<\/p>\n
Rule 10 of the Code, the application filed by them under Order IX Rule<\/p>\n
13 of the Code on 21.7.1999 was time barred as the suit was decreed<\/p>\n
ex parte on 20.5.1999. Therefore, learned lower Courts rightly declined<\/p>\n
to grant any interference to the petitioner and her husband on their<\/p>\n
application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            The records of the case, which were requisitioned, have<\/p>\n
been thoroughly examined.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            While appearing as AW1, Smt. Paramjit Kaur-petitioner<\/p>\n
described herself to be a resident of Barnala. She admitted that she<\/p>\n
had filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code through her<\/p>\n
counsel but the same was dismissed. The said application dated<\/p>\n
28.5.1998 has been brought on record by the plaintiff\/contesting<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 as Ex.R3 wherein Paramjit Kaur pleaded that she be<\/p>\n
also impleaded as party-defendant in Civil Suit No.124 dated 19.5.1998<\/p>\n
titled Amarjit Singh @ Jeet Singh v. Raj Singh and another. The<\/p>\n
aforementioned application filed by the petitioner was replied by<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 on 5.6.1998 wherein it was specifically mentioned by<\/p>\n
him that he had also filed Civil Suit No.110 dated 16.5.1998 and<\/p>\n
pending for 14.6.1998 and also obtained an order of stay against the<\/p>\n
petitioner. The said reply is on the record as Annexure R2. The<\/p>\n
application dated 28.5.1998 (Annexure R3) submitted by the petitioner<\/p>\n
was dismissed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barnala on<\/p>\n
15.6.1998 vide order Ex.R4. While ordering so, learned Judge<\/p>\n
mentioned the factum of the pendency of the present suit, i.e. Civil Suit
\n Civil Revision No. 1168 of 2005                                                 -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
No.110 dated 16.5.1998. Relevant observations made regarding the<\/p>\n
pendency of the present suit are reproduced as under :-<\/p>\n
             “In the revenue record, the applicant is not the
\n             owner in possession. No khasra girdawari entered
\n             to the name of applicant and no mutation has been
\n             sanctioned to her name which has already been
\n             challenged and the same is pending in the Court of
\n             Shri Baljinder Singh, P.CS., Civil Judge (Junior
\n             Division), Barnala, and he has also secured the
\n             stay from the Court regarding the alienation, the
\n             Photostat copy of the order dated 16.5.1998 has
\n             been        attached       with        this     reply.     The
\n             respondent\/plaintiff has prayed for dismissal of
\n             application.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  xxxx                      xxxx                 xxxx\n\n                            xxxx                      xxxx\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
             The alleged decree dated 23.10.1996 has already
\n             been challenged in the Court of Shri Baljinder
\n             Singh,    P.C.S.,      Civil    Judge     (Junior    Division),
\n             Barnala. Due to this reason, the applicant Paramjit
\n             Kaur is not necessary party in this case.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             From the above, it stands established that the petitioner<\/p>\n
and her husband Surjit Singh had known on the basis of reply dated<\/p>\n
5.6.1998    (Ex.R2)      and   order        dated    15.6.1998        (Ex.R4)    that<\/p>\n
plaintiff\/respondent No.1 had filed Civil Suit No.110 dated 16.5.1998.<\/p>\n
Despite the same they did not take any steps to put in appearance<\/p>\n
before the trial Court in the present suit.\n<\/p>\n
 Civil Revision No. 1168 of 2005                                         -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
             A perusal of ex parte judgment dated May 20, 1999<\/p>\n
(Ex.R1) would reveal that the petitioner and her husband were served<\/p>\n
in the suit on 31.10.1998 through publication in a daily newspaper.<\/p>\n
Despite the same, they failed to put in appearance before the learned<\/p>\n
trial Court and were resultantly, proceeded against ex parte.<\/p>\n
             Though,   according    to   plaintiff\/respondent   No.1,    the<\/p>\n
petitioner and her husband were residents of Barnala yet they had<\/p>\n
pleaded in their application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code that<\/p>\n
they were residing at Kothey Ram Sar, near Drain Bridge, Baja Khana<\/p>\n
Road, Barnala. As mentioned above, the petitioner and her husband,<\/p>\n
while filing their application did aver that they were residents of Kothey<\/p>\n
Ram Sar and their said address was mentioned at the end of the<\/p>\n
application also where they affixed their thumb impressions. However,<\/p>\n
alongwith aforementioned application, the petitioner had sworn in an<\/p>\n
affidavit wherein she mentioned herself to be resident of Barnala.<\/p>\n
Similarly, in their application under Section 151 C.P.C. for staying the<\/p>\n
operation of the ex parte decree dated 20.5.1999 and also the affidavit<\/p>\n
sworn in support thereof they were described as residents of Barnala.<\/p>\n
Anyhow, learned trial Court had agreed with the stand of the petitioner<\/p>\n
and her husband that the complete and proper address of the petitioner<\/p>\n
and her husband was not mentioned in the suit and they were simply<\/p>\n
stated to be residents of Barnala, but once it is held that the petitioner<\/p>\n
and her husband were aware of the pendency of the present suit, they<\/p>\n
were required to file an application within a period of 30 days, but<\/p>\n
instead they filed such an application only on 21.7.1999, which was<\/p>\n
clearly time barred.\n<\/p>\n
 Civil Revision No. 1168 of 2005                                      -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
            In view of the above, no case is made out for interference<\/p>\n
in the orders passed by the learned lower Courts while declining the<\/p>\n
prayer of the petitioner and respondent No.2 for setting aside ex parte<\/p>\n
decree. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                                   ( T.P.S. MANN )\nAugust 25, 2009                                         JUDGE\nsatish\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
               Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES \/ NO\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Paramjit Kaur vs Amarjit Singh @ Jeet Singh And … on 25 August, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1168 of 2005 Date of Decision : August 25, 2009 Paramjit Kaur ….Petitioner Versus Amarjit Singh @ Jeet Singh and another …..Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3591","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nParamjit Kaur vs Amarjit Singh @ Jeet Singh And ... on 25 August, 2009 - 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\/paramjit-kaur-vs-amarjit-singh-jeet-singh-and-on-25-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Paramjit Kaur vs Amarjit Singh @ Jeet Singh And ... on 25 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paramjit-kaur-vs-amarjit-singh-jeet-singh-and-on-25-august-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-11T19:11:47+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\\\/paramjit-kaur-vs-amarjit-singh-jeet-singh-and-on-25-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paramjit-kaur-vs-amarjit-singh-jeet-singh-and-on-25-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Paramjit Kaur vs Amarjit Singh @ Jeet Singh And … on 25 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-11T19:11:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paramjit-kaur-vs-amarjit-singh-jeet-singh-and-on-25-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1740,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paramjit-kaur-vs-amarjit-singh-jeet-singh-and-on-25-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paramjit-kaur-vs-amarjit-singh-jeet-singh-and-on-25-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paramjit-kaur-vs-amarjit-singh-jeet-singh-and-on-25-august-2009\",\"name\":\"Paramjit Kaur vs Amarjit Singh @ Jeet Singh And ... on 25 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-11T19:11:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paramjit-kaur-vs-amarjit-singh-jeet-singh-and-on-25-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paramjit-kaur-vs-amarjit-singh-jeet-singh-and-on-25-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paramjit-kaur-vs-amarjit-singh-jeet-singh-and-on-25-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Paramjit Kaur vs Amarjit Singh @ Jeet Singh And … on 25 August, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Paramjit Kaur vs Amarjit Singh @ Jeet Singh And ... on 25 August, 2009 - 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\/paramjit-kaur-vs-amarjit-singh-jeet-singh-and-on-25-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Paramjit Kaur vs Amarjit Singh @ Jeet Singh And ... on 25 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paramjit-kaur-vs-amarjit-singh-jeet-singh-and-on-25-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-11T19:11:47+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\/paramjit-kaur-vs-amarjit-singh-jeet-singh-and-on-25-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paramjit-kaur-vs-amarjit-singh-jeet-singh-and-on-25-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Paramjit Kaur vs Amarjit Singh @ Jeet Singh And … on 25 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-11T19:11:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paramjit-kaur-vs-amarjit-singh-jeet-singh-and-on-25-august-2009"},"wordCount":1740,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paramjit-kaur-vs-amarjit-singh-jeet-singh-and-on-25-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paramjit-kaur-vs-amarjit-singh-jeet-singh-and-on-25-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paramjit-kaur-vs-amarjit-singh-jeet-singh-and-on-25-august-2009","name":"Paramjit Kaur vs Amarjit Singh @ Jeet Singh And ... on 25 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-11T19:11:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paramjit-kaur-vs-amarjit-singh-jeet-singh-and-on-25-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paramjit-kaur-vs-amarjit-singh-jeet-singh-and-on-25-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paramjit-kaur-vs-amarjit-singh-jeet-singh-and-on-25-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Paramjit Kaur vs Amarjit Singh @ Jeet Singh And … on 25 August, 2009"}]},{"@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\/3591","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=3591"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3591\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3591"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3591"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3591"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}