{"id":40888,"date":"1975-02-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1975-02-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhoom-singh-vs-prakash-chandra-sethi-ors-on-20-february-1975"},"modified":"2019-03-22T21:57:49","modified_gmt":"2019-03-22T16:27:49","slug":"dhoom-singh-vs-prakash-chandra-sethi-ors-on-20-february-1975","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhoom-singh-vs-prakash-chandra-sethi-ors-on-20-february-1975","title":{"rendered":"Dhoom Singh vs Prakash Chandra Sethi &amp; Ors on 20 February, 1975"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Dhoom Singh vs Prakash Chandra Sethi &amp; Ors on 20 February, 1975<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1975 AIR 1012, \t\t  1975 SCR  (3) 595<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: A Gupta<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Gupta, A.C.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nDHOOM SINGH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nPRAKASH CHANDRA SETHI &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT20\/02\/1975\n\nBENCH:\nGUPTA, A.C.\nBENCH:\nGUPTA, A.C.\nUNTWALIA, N.L.\nBEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH\nALAGIRISWAMI, A.\n\nCITATION:\n 1975 AIR 1012\t\t  1975 SCR  (3) 595\n 1975 SCC  (1) 597\n CITATOR INFO :\n E\t    1984 SC 135\t (21,22)\n\n\nACT:\nRepresentation\t of   People   Act   1951--Section    81(3),\n86(1)--116--A  if  an  election\t petitioner  collusively  or\nfraudulently  refrain  from prosecuting the  appeal  whether\nanother\t   voter   can\t apply\t to   proceed\t with\t the\npetitioner--Interpretation of statute--Lacuna.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nRespondent  No. 1 was elected to Madhya Pradesh\t Legislative\nAssembly.   Third respondent filed an Election Petition\t for\ndeclaring  the\telection  of  the  first  respondent   void.\nRespondent  No.\t 1  made an application to  the\t High  Court\nraising objection that copy of the election petition and the\naffidavit served onhim were not signed and that it  amounted\nto  non-compliance with section 81(3) of the  Representation\nof People Act, 1951, and the election petition was liable to\nbe dismissed under section 86(1).  Several persons including\nappellant  intervened  to  say that  respondent\t No.  3\t had\ncolluded with respondent No. 1 and that as a, matter of fact\nthere was no non-compliance with the requirement of  section\n81(3).\t  The\tappellant  offered   to\t  substantiate\t his\nallegation.    The  intervention  applications\tfiled\twere\nrejected by the High Court.  The High Court held that  there\nwas  non-compliance  with  section  81(3)  and,\t  therefore,\ndismissed  the\telection petition.  The appellant  filed  an\nappeal to this Court under section 116-A of the Act.  In the\nalternative,  he  prayed to treat it as the  petition  under\nArticle 136.  This Hon'ble Court allowed the appeal to treat\nit  as a Special Leave Petition and granted  Special  Leave.\nThe  appellant was not permitted to challenge the  order  of\nthe  High  Court made under section 86.\t  He  was,  however,\nallowed to challenge the refusal 'of the High Court to allow\nhim to intervene.  The appellant contended :\n\t      (1)   That in substance and effect the  action\n\t      of  the  third respondent\t was  tantamount  to\n\t      withdrawal  of  his election petition  and  in\n\t      that   view  of  the  matter   the   procedure\n\t      prescribed in sections 109 and 110 of the\t Act\n\t      ought  to have been followed and given  effect\n\t      to.\n\t      (2)   That   in\tany  view  of\tthe   matter\n\t      respondent   no.\t3  should  not\t have\tbeen\n\t      permitted to walk out of the field without  an\n\t      investigation  of\t the facts  alleged  by\t the\n\t      appellant\t which\tif found  true,\t would\thave\n\t      shown  that there was no\tnon-compliance\twith\n\t      the  requirement of the law and  the  election\n\t      petition was not liable to be dismissed under-\n\t      section 86.\n\t      (3)   In\t an  election  dispute\t the   whole\n\t      constituency is interested and any elector  of\n\t      that  constituency from which a candidate\t had\n\t      been  returned  and whose\t election  has\tbeen\n\t      challenged can intervene in the matter.\nHELD  : It is difficult to accept that in substance  and  in\neffect the action of' respondent No. 3 even assuming that it\nwas  collusive or fraudulent had the effect  of\t withdrawing\nhis  election petition.\t The Legislature has chosen to\tmake\nspecial\t provisions  for  the continuance  of  the  election\npetition only in case of its withdrawal or abatement.  It is\nnot  necessary for this Court to express any opinion as\t to,\nwhether omission to do so is deliberate or inadvertent.\t  It\nmay  be a case of Casus omissus. it is a well-known rule  of\nconstruction  of statutes that a Statute, even more  than  a\ncontract. must be construed, utres magis valest quam pereat.\nso +hat the intentions of the Legislature cannot be  treated\na-, vain or left to operate in the air.\t Another consequence\nof this rule is that a statute cannot be extended to, meet a\ncase  for  which provision has clearly and  undoubtedly\t not\nbeen made. [598H; 599B-D]\n<a href=\"\/doc\/173738\/\">Shedhan\t Singh\tv.  Mohan Lal, Gautam<\/a> (1969)  3\t S.C.R.\t 417\ndistinguished.\nHELD  FURTHER  : There is undoubtedly a lacuna\tin  the\t Act\nbecause\t it makes provision when an election  petitioner  is\nallowed to withdraw but makes no\n596\nsuch provision if he just refuses to prosecute it.  However,\nin  such  contingency, if thought necessary it\tis  for\t the\nLegislature  to\t intervene.  The Court was  help'less.\t The\nappeal was dismissed. [600D]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  1560  of<br \/>\n1973.\n<\/p>\n<p>From  the Judgment &amp; Order dated the 23rd January,  1973  of<br \/>\n&#8216;the  Madhya Pradesh High Court in Election Petition No.  13<br \/>\nof 1972.\n<\/p>\n<p>S.P.  Gupta,  S.  S. Khanduja and E. C.\t Agarwala,  for\t the<br \/>\nAppellant;\n<\/p>\n<p>Ram  Panjwani, C. S. S. Rao, D. N. Mishra, J. B.  Dadachanji<br \/>\nand O.C. Mathur, for Respondent No. 1;\n<\/p>\n<p>Respondent No. 2 appeared in person.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered\\ by<br \/>\nUNTWALIA,  J. Respondent No. 1 in this appeal was elected  a<br \/>\n&#8216;Member\t of  the Madhya Pradesh State  Legislative  Assembly<br \/>\nfrom  the  Ujjain North Assembly  Constituency.\t  The  third<br \/>\nrespondent  filed an election petition on 25-4-1972  in\t the<br \/>\nMadhya Pradesh High Court for declaring the election of\t the<br \/>\nfirst  respondent void.\t After service of the notice of\t the<br \/>\nelection   petition   alongwith\t the   enclosures   thereto,<br \/>\n&#8216;Respondent  No. 1 made an application on 28-11-1972 to\t the<br \/>\nHigh  Court raising an objection that out of the  copies  of<br \/>\nthe  election petition, list of Annexures and Affidavits  on<br \/>\nhim, only the annexures were signed by Respondent No. 3\t and<br \/>\nthe  rest  were\t not.  Signed  by  him.\t  Respondent  No.  1<br \/>\nsubmitted to the Court that there was noncompliance with the<br \/>\nrequirement   of  sub-section  3  of  Section  81   of\t the<br \/>\nRepresentation\tof the People Act, 1951-(hereinafter  called<br \/>\n,the  Act) and hence the election petition was liable to  be<br \/>\ndismissed  ,under section 86(1).  A learned single Judge  of<br \/>\nthe  High  Court  to whom the  election\t petition  had\tbeen<br \/>\ntransferred  for disposal heard the matter on several  dates<br \/>\nalong  with some other miscellaneous petitions filed in\t the<br \/>\ncase.\tTime was granted to learned counsel  for  Respondent<br \/>\nNo. 3 to resist the prayer of Respondent No. 1 for dismissal<br \/>\nof  the election petition.  Eventually learned\tcounsel\t for<br \/>\nrespondent  &#8216;withdrew  from  the  case\tand  the  respondent<br \/>\npresented his case in person to the Court.  Several  persons<br \/>\nin the mean-time intervened to say that Respondent No. 3 had<br \/>\ncolluded  with &#8216;Respondent No. 1, as a matter of fact  there<br \/>\nwas no non-compliance with the requirement of section  81(3)<br \/>\nof  the Act, and therefore, the election petition could\t not<br \/>\nbe  dismissed  under section 86.  They asked  the  Court  to<br \/>\nallow  them  to intervene.  Prayer of one  such\t person\t was<br \/>\nrefused\t by the High Court on 12-1-1973.  Finally  when\t the<br \/>\norder  on the objection of Respondent No. 1 was going to  be<br \/>\nmade  on  23-1-1973, the appellant came forward to  make  an<br \/>\napplication for intervention.  He stated that Respondent No.<br \/>\n3  in collusion with Respondent No. 1 had admitted that\t the<br \/>\ncopies\tof the petition were not attested to be true  copies<br \/>\nand were not signed by him. on enquiries he had come to know<br \/>\nthat  all the copies of the petition and The annexures\twere<br \/>\nduly attested to be true copies of the petitions<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">597<\/span><br \/>\nand  were  signed by Respondent; No. 3, it was\tnot  in\t the<br \/>\ninterest  of&#8217; justice to dismiss the election petition as  a<br \/>\nresult of the false and collusive stand of Respondents 3 and\n<\/p>\n<p>1.  The appellant offered to substantantive  his  allegation<br \/>\nand  prayed  for  a  week&#8217;s time to do\tthe  same.   In\t the<br \/>\nmeantime passing of the order on the petition of Res-<br \/>\npondent No.1 was asked to be deferred.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  High Court asked the appellant&#8217;s counsel who  was\tnone<br \/>\nelse  than  the\t counsel of Respondent No.  3  and  who\t had<br \/>\nwithdrawn  from\t representing  him,  to\t show  under.\twhat<br \/>\nprovision  of  the Act or any other law an  elector  of\t the<br \/>\nConstituency as the appellant was, had&#8217; a right to intervene<br \/>\nin  the case.  Since the appellants Advocate was  unable  to<br \/>\nshow it the prayer of the appellant was rejected by an order<br \/>\npassed\ton 23-1-1973.  Later on the same date by a  reasoned<br \/>\nand long order the objection of Respondent No. 1 was allowed<br \/>\non  the. basis of the copies of the various papers  as\tthey<br \/>\nwere  before  the Court.  It was held that  there  was\tnon-<br \/>\ncompliance with the requirement of section 81(3) of the\t Act<br \/>\nand  hence  the\t election  petition  was  dismissed  by\t the<br \/>\nseparate order Passed on 23-1-1973.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  appellant\tpresented  an appeal  to  this\tCourt  under<br \/>\nsection 116A of the Act along with a petition to permit\t him<br \/>\nto file the appeal.  In the alternative a prayer was made to<br \/>\ntreat the petition of appeal as a petition under Article 136<br \/>\nof  the Constitution of India for seeking special  leave  of<br \/>\nthis  Court, to file an appeal from the order  refusing\t the<br \/>\nappellant&#8217;s prayer made in his petition dated 23-1-1973.   A<br \/>\nBench  of this Court upon hearing counsel for the  appellant<br \/>\nand Respondent No. 1 permitted the converting of the  appeal<br \/>\nof  the appellant into a special leave petition and  granted<br \/>\nspecial leave by its order dt. 11-10-1973.  It also directed<br \/>\nthe  consideration,  of\t the question at  the  time  of\t the<br \/>\nhearing\t of the appeal whether an appeal would lie  to\tthis<br \/>\nCourt in the circumstances of the case.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr.  Ram  Panjwani,  learned counsel for  Respondent  No.  1<br \/>\npointed&#8221;  out  that special leave was granted on  a  limited<br \/>\nquestion and. at the outset it had to be decided whether the<br \/>\nappellant&#8217;s  appeal is competent.  Mr. S. V. Gupte,  learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the appellant submitted that in this very appeal<br \/>\nit  had\t to  be decided whether the appellant  had  a  locus<br \/>\nstandi to prefer an appeal to this Court, under section 116A<br \/>\nof  the Act from the order of the High Court dismissing\t the<br \/>\nelection petition of Respondent No. 3 under section 86.\t  In<br \/>\nany  view  of  the matter, counsel  further  submitted,\t the<br \/>\npresent\t appeal\t was competent from the order  of  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  rejecting the appellants prayer made in his  petition<br \/>\ndated 23-1-1973.\n<\/p>\n<p>Although  in view of the explanation appended to  subsection<br \/>\n(1)  of\t Section 86 of the Act an order of  the\t High  Court<br \/>\ndismissing the election petition under the said\t sub-section<br \/>\nis  to\tbe deemed to be an order made under  clause  (a)  of<br \/>\nSection 98 and hence appealable under section 116A,  learned<br \/>\ncounsel\t for the appellant found it difficult to satisfy  us<br \/>\nthat  the scope of this appeal was to find out\twhether\t the<br \/>\nappellant  was\ta  person who had a right to  file  such  an<br \/>\nappear or in any event he had such right.  The appellant was<br \/>\nnot a party<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">598<\/span><br \/>\nto the election petition nor was he allowed the intervention<br \/>\nby  the High Court. in this appeal, therefore, there  is  no<br \/>\nquestion of permitting the appellant to challenge the  order<br \/>\nof  the\t High  Court made under-section 86  of\tthe  Act  on<br \/>\nmerits.\n<\/p>\n<p>There  is, however, no doubt that in this appeal it is\topen<br \/>\nto  the\t ,,appellant to assail the order made  by  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  on his petition Bled on 23-1-1973.  To do so  it\t was<br \/>\nargued for the appellant :-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (1)   That in substance and effect the  action<br \/>\n\t      of  the  third respondent\t was  tantamount  to<br \/>\n\t      withdrawal  of his selection petition  and  in<br \/>\n\t      that   view  of  the  matter   the   procedure<br \/>\n\t      prescribed in sections 109 and 110 of the\t Act<br \/>\n\t      ought  to have been followed and given  effect<br \/>\n\t      to.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (2)   That   in\tany  view  of\tthe   matter<br \/>\n\t      Respondent.No.   3   should  not\t have\tbeen<br \/>\n\t      permitted to walk out of the field without  an<br \/>\n\t      investigation  of\t the facts  alleged  by\t the<br \/>\n\t      appellant,  which\t if found true,\t would\thave<br \/>\n\t      shown  that there was no\tnon-compliance\twith<br \/>\n\t      the  requirement of the law and  the  election<br \/>\n\t      petition was not liable to be dismissed under-<br \/>\n\t      section- 86..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (3)   In\t an  election  dispute\t the   whole<br \/>\n\t      Constituency is interested and any elector  of<br \/>\n\t      that  Constituency from which a candidate\t had<br \/>\n\t      been  returned  and whose\t election  has\tbeen<br \/>\n\t      challenged can intervene in the matter.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>We  do not think that any of the points urged on  behalf  of<br \/>\nthe appellant is fit to succeed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 11 of the Act containing sections 80 to 84 deal with<br \/>\npresentation  of election petitions.  Chapter  III  starting<br \/>\nfrom  section  86 is headed &#8220;Trial of  Election\t Petitions&#8221;.<br \/>\nThen  comes  Chapter IV incorporating sections\t109  to\t 116<br \/>\nproviding  for\tthe  procedure to be  followed\tin  case  of<br \/>\nwithdrawal and abatement of election petitions.\t Under\tsub-<br \/>\nsection\t (1)  of section- 109 an election  petition  may  be<br \/>\nwithdrawn  only\t by leave of the High Court.  When  such  an<br \/>\napplication  is made notice is to be given not only  to\t the<br \/>\nparties\t to the election petition but it is to be  published<br \/>\nin  the official gazette also.\tSub-section (2)\t of  section<br \/>\n110 enjoins upon the High Court not to allow the  withdrawal<br \/>\napplication  if\t it  has  been induced\tby  any\t bargain  or<br \/>\nconsideration  which  ought  not  to  be  allowed.   If\t the<br \/>\nwithdrawal  application is granted then section 110 (3)\t (c)<br \/>\npermits a person who might himself have been a petitioner in<br \/>\nthe  election  petition\t to  apply  to\tbe  substituted\t  as<br \/>\npetitioner in place of the party withdrawing within 14\tdays<br \/>\nof the date of the publication of the notice in the official<br \/>\ngazette.  Similarly on the abatement of an election petition<br \/>\non  the death of the petitioner or petitioners as  the\tcase<br \/>\nmay be any person who might himself have been petitioner can<br \/>\napply  to  be substituted under sub-section (3)\t of  section\n<\/p>\n<p>112.  It is ,difficult to accept the contention put  forward<br \/>\non behalf of the :appellant that in substance and in  effect<br \/>\nthe action of Respondent<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">599<\/span><br \/>\nNo.  3, even assuming it was collusive, or  fraudulent,\t had<br \/>\nthe effect of withdrawing his election petition by him.\t  It<br \/>\nmay also be added that there was no such stand taken by\t the<br \/>\nappellant  in his petition filed in the High Court on  23-1-<br \/>\n1973.\tNone  of the provisions relating  to  withdrawal  of<br \/>\nelection petition was attracted in this case.<br \/>\nThe  Legislature  in its wisdom has chosen to  make  special<br \/>\nprovisions for the continuance of the election petition only<br \/>\nin  case  of its withdrawal or abatement.  It has&#8217;  yet\t not<br \/>\nthought\t it fit to make any provision in the Act  permitting<br \/>\n&#8216;Intervention  of  an  elector of the  Constituency  in\t all<br \/>\ncontingencies  of failures of the election  petition  either<br \/>\ndue  to\t the  collusion or fraud of  the  original  election<br \/>\npetitioner or otherwise.  It is not necessary for this Court<br \/>\nto  express any opinion as to whether the omission to do  so<br \/>\nis  deliberate\tor inadvertent.\t It may be a case  of  Casus<br \/>\nomissus.   It  is  a  well-known  rule\tof  construction  of<br \/>\nstatutes that &#8220;A statute, even more than a contract, must be<br \/>\nconstrued,,  ut\t res magis valeat quam pereat, so  that\t the<br \/>\nintentions of the legislature may not be treated as vain  or<br \/>\nleft  to  operate in the air.&#8221; A second consequent  of\tthis<br \/>\nrule is that &#8221; a,statute may not be extended to meet a\tcase<br \/>\nfor  which  provision has clearly and undoubtedly  not\tbeen<br \/>\nmade&#8221;-See  pages  69  and 70 of Craies\ton  Statute  Law-6th<br \/>\nedition.\n<\/p>\n<p>It  seems plain that the High Court is enjoined\t to  dismiss<br \/>\nail  election  petition\t which\tdoes  not  comply  with\t the<br \/>\nprovisions of section 81 or section 82 or section 117 of the<br \/>\nAct.   In  the true cases of non-compliance  with  the\tsaid<br \/>\nprovisions  of\tlaw a question of  intervention\t by  another<br \/>\nperson\tmay  not  arise.  But there may be a  case,  as\t the<br \/>\ninstant one was alleged to be (we are, expressing no opinion<br \/>\nof ours in this regard even by any implication whether\tthis<br \/>\nwas so or not), where as a result of the fraud or  collusion<br \/>\nbetween\t the election petitioner and the returned  candidate<br \/>\nthe  High Court is fraudulently misled to act under  section\n<\/p>\n<p>861.  Even in such a situation we find no provision in the<br \/>\nAct  under which the High Court could permit a\tperson\tlike<br \/>\nthe appellant to intervene in the matter or to\tsubstantiate<br \/>\nhis  allegations of fraud or collusion between the  election<br \/>\npetitioner  and the returned candidate.\t It is difficult  to<br \/>\npress  into service the general principles of law  governing<br \/>\nan  election petition as was sought to be done on behalf  of<br \/>\nthe appellant for his intervention in the matter.  If there,<br \/>\nbe  any\t necessity  of avoiding any such  situation  as\t the<br \/>\npresent\t one  was said to be it is for\tthe  legislature  to<br \/>\nintervene  and make clear and express provision of  law\t for<br \/>\nthe purpose.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr. Gupte in support of his argument placed reliance upon  a<br \/>\npassage-which  occurs  at page 421 in tie Judgment  of\tthis<br \/>\ncourt  in <a href=\"\/doc\/173738\/\">Shedhan Singh v. Mohan Lal Gautam<\/a>(1) and which  is<br \/>\nto the following effect :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;From the above provisions it is seen that  in<br \/>\n\t      an  election petition, the contest  is  really<br \/>\n\t      between  the Constituency on the one side\t and<br \/>\n\t      the person or persons complained of on<br \/>\n\t      (1)   [3] 1 S.C.R. 417.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t      600<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      the  other.  Once the machinery of the Act  is<br \/>\n\t      moved  by\t a  candidate or  an  elector,\tthe,<br \/>\n\t      carriage\tof the case does not  entirely\trest<br \/>\n\t      with  the\t petitioner.-  The  reason  for\t the<br \/>\n\t      elaborate provisions noticed by us earlier  is<br \/>\n\t      to  ensure,  to the extent possible  that\t the<br \/>\n\t      persons  who offend the election law  are\t not<br \/>\n\t      allowed  to  avoid the consequences  of  their<br \/>\n\t      misdeeds&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>But  the  said\tobservations cannot and were  not  meant  to<br \/>\ntravel\tbeyond the realm of the contingencies of  withdrawal<br \/>\nand abatement of an election petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>In  Duryodhan  v. Sitaram and others(1) one of\tthe  learned<br \/>\nJudges constituting the Full Bench in his separate  judgment<br \/>\npointed\t out at page 14 of a similar contingency arising  in<br \/>\nthe case of dismissal of an election petition for default of<br \/>\nappearance of the election petitioner.\tThe argument that in<br \/>\nsuch  a situation &#8220;the intention of the legislature  that  a<br \/>\npetition  should  not  fail  by reason\tof  any\t bargain  or<br \/>\ncollusion between the election petitioner and the successful<br \/>\ncandidate  would be frustrated&#8221; was repelled on\t the  ground<br \/>\n&#8220;There is undoubtedly a lacunas in the Act, because it makes<br \/>\nprovision   when  an  election\tpetitioner  is\tallowed\t  to<br \/>\nwithdraw, but makes no such provision if he just refuses  to<br \/>\nprosecute it.  But that reason would not, as pointed out  by<br \/>\nGrover, J. in Jugal Kishore&#8217;s case AIR 1956 Punj 152 (supra)<br \/>\nbe a sufficient reason to construe the provisions beyond the<br \/>\npurview\t of  their  language.&#8221;\tThis  is  another  type\t  of<br \/>\ncontingency,  where  if\t thought necessary, it\tis  for\t the<br \/>\nLegislature to intervene.  The Court is helpless.<br \/>\nIn  our judgment, therefore, none of the contentions  raised<br \/>\non  behalf of the appellant is fit to be accepted as  sound.<br \/>\nThe appeal fails and is dismissed.  But in the circumstances<br \/>\nwe shall make no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<pre>P.H.P.\t\t\t      Appeal dismissed.\n(1) A.I.R. 1970, Allahabad, 1.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">601<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Dhoom Singh vs Prakash Chandra Sethi &amp; Ors on 20 February, 1975 Equivalent citations: 1975 AIR 1012, 1975 SCR (3) 595 Author: A Gupta Bench: Gupta, A.C. PETITIONER: DHOOM SINGH Vs. RESPONDENT: PRAKASH CHANDRA SETHI &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT20\/02\/1975 BENCH: GUPTA, A.C. BENCH: GUPTA, A.C. UNTWALIA, N.L. BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH [&hellip;]<\/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-40888","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Dhoom Singh vs Prakash Chandra Sethi &amp; Ors on 20 February, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/dhoom-singh-vs-prakash-chandra-sethi-ors-on-20-february-1975\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dhoom Singh vs Prakash Chandra Sethi &amp; Ors on 20 February, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhoom-singh-vs-prakash-chandra-sethi-ors-on-20-february-1975\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1975-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-22T16:27:49+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhoom-singh-vs-prakash-chandra-sethi-ors-on-20-february-1975#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhoom-singh-vs-prakash-chandra-sethi-ors-on-20-february-1975\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dhoom Singh vs Prakash Chandra Sethi &amp; Ors on 20 February, 1975\",\"datePublished\":\"1975-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-22T16:27:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhoom-singh-vs-prakash-chandra-sethi-ors-on-20-february-1975\"},\"wordCount\":2379,\"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\\\/dhoom-singh-vs-prakash-chandra-sethi-ors-on-20-february-1975#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhoom-singh-vs-prakash-chandra-sethi-ors-on-20-february-1975\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhoom-singh-vs-prakash-chandra-sethi-ors-on-20-february-1975\",\"name\":\"Dhoom Singh vs Prakash Chandra Sethi &amp; Ors on 20 February, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1975-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-22T16:27:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhoom-singh-vs-prakash-chandra-sethi-ors-on-20-february-1975#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhoom-singh-vs-prakash-chandra-sethi-ors-on-20-february-1975\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhoom-singh-vs-prakash-chandra-sethi-ors-on-20-february-1975#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dhoom Singh vs Prakash Chandra Sethi &amp; Ors on 20 February, 1975\"}]},{\"@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":"Dhoom Singh vs Prakash Chandra Sethi &amp; Ors on 20 February, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/dhoom-singh-vs-prakash-chandra-sethi-ors-on-20-february-1975","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dhoom Singh vs Prakash Chandra Sethi &amp; Ors on 20 February, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhoom-singh-vs-prakash-chandra-sethi-ors-on-20-february-1975","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1975-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-22T16:27:49+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhoom-singh-vs-prakash-chandra-sethi-ors-on-20-february-1975#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhoom-singh-vs-prakash-chandra-sethi-ors-on-20-february-1975"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dhoom Singh vs Prakash Chandra Sethi &amp; Ors on 20 February, 1975","datePublished":"1975-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-22T16:27:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhoom-singh-vs-prakash-chandra-sethi-ors-on-20-february-1975"},"wordCount":2379,"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\/dhoom-singh-vs-prakash-chandra-sethi-ors-on-20-february-1975#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhoom-singh-vs-prakash-chandra-sethi-ors-on-20-february-1975","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhoom-singh-vs-prakash-chandra-sethi-ors-on-20-february-1975","name":"Dhoom Singh vs Prakash Chandra Sethi &amp; Ors on 20 February, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1975-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-22T16:27:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhoom-singh-vs-prakash-chandra-sethi-ors-on-20-february-1975#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhoom-singh-vs-prakash-chandra-sethi-ors-on-20-february-1975"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhoom-singh-vs-prakash-chandra-sethi-ors-on-20-february-1975#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dhoom Singh vs Prakash Chandra Sethi &amp; Ors on 20 February, 1975"}]},{"@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\/40888","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=40888"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40888\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=40888"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=40888"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=40888"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}