{"id":41350,"date":"2009-07-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karthikeyan-vs-r-vasanth-on-20-july-2009"},"modified":"2015-01-06T00:33:49","modified_gmt":"2015-01-05T19:03:49","slug":"karthikeyan-vs-r-vasanth-on-20-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karthikeyan-vs-r-vasanth-on-20-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"Karthikeyan vs R.Vasanth on 20 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Karthikeyan vs R.Vasanth on 20 July, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED:20\/07\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI\n\nC.M.A.(MD)No.276 of 2009\nand\nC.M.A.(MD)No.277 of 2009\nand\nM.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2009 &\nCaveat P.(MD)No.172 of 2009\nin\nC.M.A.(MD)No.276 of 2009\n\nKarthikeyan\t\t\t... Appellant in both the CMAs\n\nVs.\n\n1.R.Vasanth\n\t\t\t\t... \tRespondent in CMA.No.276\/2009<\/pre>\n
2.Kannan @ Rajendran
\n\t\t\t\t… \tRespondent in both the CMAs<\/p>\n
Prayer in C.M.A.No.276 of 2009<\/p>\n
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order 43
\nRule 1(d) and Section 104 of CPC., to set aside the fair and decretal order
\npassed in I.A.No.63 of 2008 in O.S.No.40 of 2005 dated 17.09.2008 on the file of
\nthe Additional District Court (Fast Track Court), Thoothukudi.\n<\/p>\n
Prayer in C.M.A.No.277 of 2009<\/p>\n
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order 43
\nRule 1(d) and Section 104 of CPC., to set aside the fair and decretal order
\npassed in I.A.No.64 of 2008 in O.S.No.48 of 2004 dated 17.09.2008 on the file of
\nthe Additional District Court (Fast Track Court), Thoothukudi.\n<\/p>\n
!For Petitioner   … Mr.M.Vallinayagam
\n^For Respondents  … Mr.V.Perumal for R1 and 2<\/p>\n
:COMMON JUDGMENT
\n\tThese civil miscellaneous appeals are arising out of the common order
\npassed in I.A.No.63 of 2008 in O.S.No.40 of 2005 and I.A.No.64 of 2008 in
\nO.S.No.48 of 2004, dated 17.09.2008, on the file of the Additional District
\nCourt (Fast Track Court), Thoothukudi.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.The facts of the case are as under:\n<\/p>\n
A suit in O.S.No.40 of 2005 has been filed by Kannan\/1st respondent herein
\nagainst his father Kannan @ Rajendran and Karthikeyan\/appellant herein before
\nthe Additional District Court(Fast Track Court), Thoothukudi for declaration of
\ntitle and for consequential relief of injunction restraining the 1st defendant
\nnot to alienate the suit property to the 2nd defendant.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.For convenience sake the plaintiff in O.S.No.40 of 2005 is referred as
\nplaintiff and the plaintiff in O.S.No.45 of 2004 who is the 2nd defendant in
\nO.S.No.40 of 2005 is referred as defendant\/appellant in these appeals.  A suit
\nin O.S.No.48 of 2004 has been filed by Karthikeyan\/appellant herein against
\nKannan @ Rajendran\/2nd respondent herein\/1st defendant in O.S.No.40 of 2005
\nbefore the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Thoothukudi,
\nfor specific performance.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.The case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.40 of 2005 is that the suit property
\nabsolutely belongs to him.  As his father\/first defendant, who had no right in
\nthe suit property, had entered into a sale agreement with the 2nd defendant, he
\nhad filed and prayed for a declaration of title and injunction.  This suit was
\nresisted by the 2nd defendant.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.The 2nd defendant, who is the agreement holder, had filed O.S.No.48 of
\n2004, would state that he had entered into a sale agreement with the father of
\nthe plaintiff and had paid substantial amount of the sale price and was ready
\nand willing to perform his part of the contract.  However, this suit was filed
\nagainst the father of the plaintiff and the same was resisted by the sole
\ndefendant.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.Both the suits were taken up together and a joint trial was conducted.
\nThe evidence was recorded in O.S.No.40 of 2005 and documents were also marked
\nincluding the sale agreement with further endorsements. The plaintiff was
\nexamined as P.W.1 and one more witness was also examined as P.W.2.  The 1st
\ndefendant in O.S.No.40 of 2005, who is also the sole defendant in O.S.No.48 of
\n2004 was also examined as D.W.1 and was also cross-examined.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.After closing the evidence of the plaintiff and also the examination of
\nthe 1st defendant in O.S.No.40 of 2005 as D.W.1, the 2nd defendant in O.S.No.40
\nof 2005 and the plaintiff in O.S.No.48 of 2004 have filed an application in
\nI.A.No.6 of 2008, for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and the same was
\ndismissed on 07.02.2008.  The appellant has filed an application in I.A.No.14 of
\n2008 to  re-open the case as the evidence on the side of the defendant was
\nclosed and the said application was allowed on 11.02.2008 and the matter was
\nadjourned from time to time for recording the evidence of the defendant.
\nFinally, it was posted on 03.04.2008.  Even, on that date also the appellant
\nherein was not present and hence, the evidence was closed and the matter was
\nposted for arguments on 08.04.2008.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.However, the dismissal of the Commission application in I.A.No.6 of 2008
\nwas challenged before this Court by filing a Civil Revision Petition and the
\nsame was allowed and again the evidence was re-opened and the matter was posted
\nfor defense evidence.  Again, the defendant was called absent on 23.06.2008  and
\nthe evidence was closed and the suit was posted for arguments on 25.06.2008.  On
\nthat date also, the defendant did not appear before the court and the counsel
\nstated “no instruction”.  Hence, the court below heard the matter and pronounced
\na common judgment on 02.07.2008, by allowing the suit in O.S.No.40 of 2005 and
\ndismissing the suit in O.S.No.48 of 2004.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.The 2nd defendant, who is the agreement-holder had filed two petitions
\nchallenging the judgment and decree in O.S.No.40 of 2005 and O.S.No.48 of 2004,
\non the file of the Additional District Court(Fast Track Court), Thoothukudi,
\nunder Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. to set aside the ex-parte decree and to re-open
\nthe case.  The case of the appellant is that he could not appear before the
\ncourt below when the matter was posted for evidence and  therefore, he has not
\nadduced any evidence and hence, the court below had passed an ex-parte decree.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.These two petitions were resisted by the plaintiff\/respondent.  After
\nelaborate enquiry, the trial court has held that the court had proceeded under
\nOrder 17 Rule 2 of C.P.C. as a substantial portion of evidence had already been
\nrecorded and therefore, the decree passed on 02.07.2008 is a decree on merits
\nand not an ex-parte decree.  Aggrieved by the above finding of the trial court,
\nthe defendant in O.S.No.40 of 2005, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.48 of 2005,
\nhas preferred these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals on the ground that the decree
\npassed on 02.07.2008 is an ex-parte decree and not a decree on merits.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.The only legal point to be considered in these appeals are whether the
\njudgment and decree dated 02.07.2008 is passed a decree on merits under Order 17
\nRule 2 or an ex-parte decree?\n<\/p>\n
\t12.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the court below
\nis wrong in holding that the substantial evidence on the part of the defendant
\nwas adduced, whereas, the defendant was not even examined before the Court and
\neven though he had shown genuine and sufficient reasons for his non-appearance
\non 25.06.2008 and the court had simply closed the evidence and therefore, it
\ncould be treated only as ex-parte decree and for that the learned counsel for
\nthe appellant relied upon the following judgments:-\n<\/p>\n
AIR 2003 SC 3527 (B.Janakiramaiah Chetty Vs. A.K.Parthasarathi and others) and
\n2005(4) CTC 451 (T.Kalyanasundaram Vs. M.S.Arumuganayakar).\n<\/p>\n
\t13.The learned counsel for the respondent would submit in spite of several
\nopportunities given to the defendant to adduce evidence, the defendant had
\nfailed to appear before the court below and the court below has rightly closed
\nthe evidence and heard the arguments and delivered the judgment. Therefore, the
\nlearned counsel would submit that the court below has passed the judgment and
\ndecree only on merits and it is not an ex-parte decree.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.Before deciding this issue, it is pertinent to note that the
\nconsequences of events.  Earlier a suit in O.S.No.48 of 2004 has been filed by
\nthe defendant, who is the appellant herein against the sole defendant for
\nspecific performance of the sale agreement.  A suit in O.S.No.40 of 2005 has
\nbeen filed for declaration of title and injunction by the son of the executant
\nof the sale agreement.  However, both the suits were tried together and evidence
\nwas adduced and witnesses were examined and documents were also marked.  The
\nfirst defendant in O.S.No.40 of 2005, who is the sole defendant in O.S.No.48 of
\n2004 was also examined as D.W.1 and he was also  cross-examined.  It is also
\npertinent to note that he was cross-examined by the agreement-holder and the
\nsale agreement with endorsements were also marked.  The plaintiff’s evidence was
\nclosed on 18.12.2007 and thereafter, the defendant filed an application for
\nappointment of an Advocate Commissioner, which was dismissed on 07.02.2008 and
\nthe defendant’s side evidence was also closed and afterwards, an application to
\nre-open the case was filed, which was allowed on 11.02.2008.  Finally, the
\nmatter was adjourned for several times for adducing the defendant’s side
\nevidence and posted finally on 03.04.2008.  As he has not come forward to adduce
\nevidence, the evidence was closed and the matter was posted for arguments on
\n08.04.2008.\n<\/p>\n
\t15.Since the Commission application was allowed by this Court in revision,
\nthe defendant filed an application to re-open the evidence,  which was also
\nallowed on 23.06.2008, for adducing evidence and again it was also closed for
\nthe non-appearance of the defendant and the matter was posted for arguments on
\n25.06.2008.  On that date, the learned counsel for the defendant endorsed “no
\ninstruction” and the matter was heard and judgment was delivered on 02.07.2008.
\nThis shows that the court below had given ample opportunities to the defendant
\nto adduce his evidence.  However, it is to be seen that whether the court below
\nhad proceeded under Order 17 Rule 2 or passed an ex-parte decree?\n<\/p>\n
\tOrder 17 Rule 2 reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“(2)Procedure if parties fail to appear on day fixed.  Where, on any day to
\nwhich the hearing of the suit is adjourned, the parties or any of them fail to
\nappear, the Court may proceed to dispose of the suit in one of the modes
\ndirected in that behalf of Order IX or make such order as it thinks fit.\n<\/p>\n
Explanation: Where the evidence of a substantial portion of the evidence of any
\nparty has already been recorded and such party fails to appear on any day to
\nwhich the hearing of the suit is adjourned, the Court may, in its discretion,
\nproceed with the case as if such party were present.\n<\/p>\n
(3)Court may proceed notwithstanding either party fails to produce evidence
\netc.-Where any party to a suit to whom time has been granted fails to produce
\nhis evidence, or to cause the attendance of his witnesses, or to perform any
\nother act necessary to the further progress of the suit, for which, time has
\nbeen allowed, the Court may, notwithstanding such default.-\n<\/p>\n
\t(a)if the parties are present proceed to decide the suit forthwith; or\n<\/p>\n
\t(b)if the parties are, or any of them is, absent, proceed under rule 2.”\n<\/p>\n
\t16.In a judgment reported in AIR 2003 SC 3527, the Apex Court has held as
\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“8.In order to determine whether the remedy under Order IX is lost or not
\nwhat is necessary to be seen is whether in the first instance the Court had
\nresorted to the Explanation of Rule 2.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.The Explanation permits the Court in its discretion to proceed with a
\ncase where substantial portion of evidence of any party has already been
\nrecorded and such party fails to appear on any day to which the hearing of the
\nsuit is adjourned.  As the provision itself shows, discretionary power given to
\nthe Court to be exercised in a given circumstances.  For application of the
\nprovision, the Court has to satisfy itself that (a)substantial portion of the
\nevidence of any party has been already recorded: (b)such party has failed to
\nappear on any day and (c)the day is one to which the hearing of the suit is
\nadjourned.  Rule 2 permits the Court to adopt any of the modes provided in Order
\nIX or to make such order as he thinks fit when on any day to which the hearing
\nof the suit is adjourned, the parties or any of them fail to appear.  The
\nExplanation is in the nature of an exception to the general power given under
\nthe rule, conferring discretion on the court to act under the specified
\ncircumstance i.e.where evidence or a substantial portion of evidence of any
\nparty has been already recorded and such party fails to appear on the date to
\nwhich hearing of the suit has been adjourned.  If such is the factual situation,
\nthe Court may in its discretion deem as if such party was present.”\n<\/p>\n
\t17.In yet another judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in
\n2005(4) CTC 451, it has held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“6.The Honourable Supreme Court of India in the judgment referred to earlier
\nwhile interpreting Order 17 Rules 2 and 3 had laid down the Law as hereunder:
\n\t“In Rule 2, the expression used is “make such order as it deems fit”, as
\nan alternative to adopting one of the modes directed in that behalf by Order 9.
\nUnder Order 17, Rule 3(b) only course open to the Court is to proceed under rule
\n2, when a party is absent.  Explanation thereto gives a discretion to the Court
\nto proceed under Rule 3 even if a party is absent.  But such a course can be
\nadopted only when the absentee party has already led evidence on a substantial
\npart thereof.  If the position is not so, the Court has no option but to proceed
\nas provided in Rule 2. Rule 2 and 3 operate in different and distinct sets of
\ncircumstances.  Rule 2 applies when an adjournment has been generally granted
\nand not for any special purpose.  On the other hand, Rule 3 operates where the
\nadjournment has been given for one of the purposes mentioned in the Rule.  While
\nRule 2 speaks of disposal of the suit in one of the specified modes, Rule 3
\nempowers the Court to decide the suit forthwith.  The basic distinction between
\nthe two Rules, however, is that in the former, any party has failed to appear at
\nthe hearing, while in the latter the party though present has committed any one
\nor more of the enumerated defaults.  Combined effect of the Explanation to Rule
\n2 and Rule 3 is that a discretion has been conferred on the Court.  The power
\nconferred is permissive and not mandatory.  The Explanation is in the nature of
\na deeming provision, when under given circumstances, the absentee party is
\ndeemed to be present.\n<\/p>\n
The crucial expression in the Explanation is “where the evidence or a
\nsubstantial portion of the evidence of a party”.  There is a positive purpose in
\nthis legislative expression.  It obviously means that the evidence on record is
\nsufficient to substantiate the absentee party’s stand and for disposal of the
\nsuit.  The absentee party is deemed to be present for this obvious purpose.  The
\nCourt while acting under the Explanation may proceed with the case if that prima
\nfacie is the position.  The Court has to be satisfied on the facts of each case
\nabout this requisite aspect.  It would be also imperative for the Court to
\nrecord its satisfaction in that perspective.  It cannot be said that the
\nrequirement of substantial portion of the evidence or the evidence having been
\nled for applying the Explanation is without any purpose.  If the evidence on
\nrecord is sufficient for disposal of the suit, there is no need for adjourning
\nthe suit or deferring the decision.  This clearly has imprints of an ex parte
\nadjudication and not of a decision on merits.  There is not even any indication
\nas to what evidence was evaluated and\/or whether the merits were tested.”
\nFrom the above, it is clear that Law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above
\nreferred to judgment is binding on us.”\n<\/p>\n
This is a case where P.W.1 to 5 have been examined in chief and the defendant
\ndid not cross-examine the witnesses, the plaintiff’s side witness was closed and
\nthe suit stood adjourned for defense.  Even thereafter, the defendant did not
\ntake part and the decree was passed.\n<\/p>\n
\t18.In a decision in  (Janakiramaiah Chetty Vs. Parthasarathi) reported in
\n2003(2)CTC 242, the Supreme Court has laid down the scope of Order 17 Rule 2 as
\n“The Trial Court in this case had no jurisdiction to pass a decree on merits and
\nit ought to have disposed of the suit only in terms of Order 17 Rule 2 without
\nthe aid of the Explanation to the said sub rule.  In the light of our decision,
\nnamely, the decree dated 13.10.2003 would only be an ex parte decree and not a
\ndecree on merits, we have no other go except to hold that the application under
\nOrder 9 Rule 13 filed by the defendant is maintainable.”\n<\/p>\n
\t19.In the light of the above referred rulings of the Supreme Court, it is
\nnecessary to see whether the trial Court satisfied itself that:\n<\/p>\n
a)a substantial portion of evidence of any party has already been adduced and\n<\/p>\n
b)the said party failed to appear on any day to which the hearing of the suit is
\nadjourned
\nIf the above points are answered affirmatively, then the Court may proceed with
\nthe case as if such party was present.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, whenever the court proceeds under Order 17 Rule 2 of C.P.C.,the above
\nsaid conditions are to be looked into by the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t20.In the instant case, the suits are one for declaration of title and for
\nconsequential relief of injunction and the other suit is for specific
\nperformance of a contract and the appellant had adduced substantial portion of
\nevidence by cross-examining the plaintiff and the executant of the sale
\nagreement and he had failed to appear on the day to which the hearing of the
\nsuit was adjourned and the court had proceeded with the case, as if such party
\nwas present.\n<\/p>\n
\t21.Therefore, in order to determine whether the judgment and decree was
\npassed under Order 17 Rule 2 as a decree on merit or an ex-parte decree, it is
\nessential to satisfy the above two conditions viz., whether a)a substantial
\nportion of evidence of any party has already been adduced and b)whether said
\nparty failed to appear on any day to which the hearing of the suit is adjourned.\n<\/p>\n
\t22.Whenever, the Court proceeds under Order 17 Rule 2 and 3 of C.P.C., the
\ntrial court should satisfy itself on the above said two conditions.  It is also
\nadvisable that the court may record its reason for proceeding under Order 17
\nRule 2 or 3 whichever is applicable to avoid misconception by the parties.\n<\/p>\n
\t23.As per the records, it is clear that the case was posted on 23.06.2008,
\nfor further evidence of the defendant and since he has not appeared and the
\nevidence was again closed and the case was posted on 25.06.2008 for arguments.
\nOn that day also, the learned counsel for the defendant reported “no
\ninstruction” and after hearing the arguments, the judgment was delivered on
\n02.07.2008.  Therefore, it is a decree on merits and not a decree on ex-parte.
\nThe court below had rightly dismissed the applications filed under Order 9 Rule
\n13, therefore, I have no reason to interfere.\n<\/p>\n
\t24.In view of the above, the common judgment and decree, dated 02.07.2008
\nin I.A.No.63 of 2008 in O.S.No.40 of 2005 and I.A.No.64 of 2008 in O.S.No.48 of
\n2004 are confirmed. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals fail and the same are
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
nbj<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
The Additional District Court
\n(Fast Track Court),
\nThoothukudi.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Karthikeyan vs R.Vasanth on 20 July, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:20\/07\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI C.M.A.(MD)No.276 of 2009 and C.M.A.(MD)No.277 of 2009 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2009 & Caveat P.(MD)No.172 of 2009 in C.M.A.(MD)No.276 of 2009 Karthikeyan … Appellant in both the CMAs Vs. […]<\/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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-41350","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKarthikeyan vs R.Vasanth on 20 July, 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\/karthikeyan-vs-r-vasanth-on-20-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Karthikeyan vs R.Vasanth on 20 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karthikeyan-vs-r-vasanth-on-20-july-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=\"2009-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-05T19:03:49+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karthikeyan-vs-r-vasanth-on-20-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karthikeyan-vs-r-vasanth-on-20-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Karthikeyan vs R.Vasanth on 20 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-05T19:03:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karthikeyan-vs-r-vasanth-on-20-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3165,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karthikeyan-vs-r-vasanth-on-20-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karthikeyan-vs-r-vasanth-on-20-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karthikeyan-vs-r-vasanth-on-20-july-2009\",\"name\":\"Karthikeyan vs R.Vasanth on 20 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-05T19:03:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karthikeyan-vs-r-vasanth-on-20-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karthikeyan-vs-r-vasanth-on-20-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karthikeyan-vs-r-vasanth-on-20-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Karthikeyan vs R.Vasanth on 20 July, 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":"Karthikeyan vs R.Vasanth on 20 July, 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\/karthikeyan-vs-r-vasanth-on-20-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Karthikeyan vs R.Vasanth on 20 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karthikeyan-vs-r-vasanth-on-20-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-05T19:03:49+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karthikeyan-vs-r-vasanth-on-20-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karthikeyan-vs-r-vasanth-on-20-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Karthikeyan vs R.Vasanth on 20 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-05T19:03:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karthikeyan-vs-r-vasanth-on-20-july-2009"},"wordCount":3165,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karthikeyan-vs-r-vasanth-on-20-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karthikeyan-vs-r-vasanth-on-20-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karthikeyan-vs-r-vasanth-on-20-july-2009","name":"Karthikeyan vs R.Vasanth on 20 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-05T19:03:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karthikeyan-vs-r-vasanth-on-20-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karthikeyan-vs-r-vasanth-on-20-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karthikeyan-vs-r-vasanth-on-20-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Karthikeyan vs R.Vasanth on 20 July, 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\/41350","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=41350"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41350\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=41350"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=41350"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=41350"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}