{"id":41786,"date":"2011-10-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-10-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gully-vs-mr-ranjitsing-sharma-on-10-october-2011"},"modified":"2018-01-27T21:40:21","modified_gmt":"2018-01-27T16:10:21","slug":"gully-vs-mr-ranjitsing-sharma-on-10-october-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gully-vs-mr-ranjitsing-sharma-on-10-october-2011","title":{"rendered":"Gully vs Mr.Ranjitsing Sharma on 10 October, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Bombay High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Gully vs Mr.Ranjitsing Sharma on 10 October, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: P. B. Majmudar, R. M. Savant<\/div>\n<pre>    ssp                                    1                            WP 734  of 2003\n\n\n               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                            \n                   ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION\n\n                        WRIT PETITION NO.734 OF 2003\n\n\n\n\n                                                    \n    Pushpalata Gopal Worlikar, \n    Age 45 years, Occu - Household, \n    Residing at Gopal House, Shreeram \n\n\n\n\n                                                   \n    Gully, Worli, Koliwada, \n    Mumbai - 400 025                                        .....Petitioner\n\n          versus\n\n\n\n\n                                          \n    1.    Mr.Ranjitsing Sharma, \n                           \n          Commissioner of Police, \n          having his office at Office of\n          Commissioner of Police, \n                          \n          Opp. Mahatma Phule Market, \n          Mumbai - 400 001. \n\n    2.    Mr.Padwal, \n          Senior Inspector of Police, \n       \n\n\n          Dadar Police Station, Mumbai. \n    \n\n\n\n    3.    Mr.Waghmare, \n          Police Sub Inspector, \n          Dadar Police Station, Mumbai\n          Nos.2 and 3 having their Offices at \n\n\n\n\n\n          Bhavani Shankar Road, Mumbai - 400 028. \n\n    4.    Shri Ranglal Jain, \n          Age about 50 years, Occu Business, \n\n\n\n\n\n    5.    Smt.(name not known ), wife of \n          Ranglal Jain, Age not known, Occu Household, \n\n    6.    Devendra, son of Ranglal Jain, \n          Age about 30 years, Occu Business, \n          Nos.4 to 6 occupying portion of \n          Shop No.1 In house No.460, Ramchandra\n          Poshu Chawl, Bhagat Gully, Worli, Koliwada, \n\n\n\n\n                                                    ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:49:46 :::\n     ssp                                           2                                  WP 734  of 2003\n\n\n             Mumbai - 400 025. \n\n\n\n\n                                                                                         \n    7.       State of Maharashtra,\n             Home Department, Mantralaya, \n\n\n\n\n                                                                \n             Mumbai - 400 032.                                           ..... Respondents\n\n    Mr.V.S.Paradkar, for the petitioner. \n    Mr.G.W.Mattos, AGP, for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 7. \n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n    Mr.S.S.Redekar, for respondent Nos.4 and 6.\n\n                             CORAM:  P.B.MAJMUDAR &amp;\n                                     R.M.SAVANT, JJ. \n<\/pre>\n<pre>                                 ig            th\n                                DATE:       10    OCTOBER, 2011\n                                                               \n\n    ORAL JUDGMENT ( PER P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. ) : -\n                               \n<\/pre>\n<p>    1.                 By   way   of   this   petition,   the   petitioner   has   prayed   for <\/p>\n<p>    appropriate writ directions orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of <\/p>\n<p>    India directing respondent Nos.1 to 3 to remove the respondent Nos.4 to 6 <\/p>\n<p>    from the possession of disputed shop being Shop No.1 in house No.460, <\/p>\n<p>    Ramchandra  Poshu Chawl, Bhagat Gully, Worli, Koliwada,  Mumbai &#8211; 400 <\/p>\n<p>    025, which premises according to the petitioner belongs to him.  It is the <\/p>\n<p>    case   of   the   petitioner   that   she   had   initially   filed   a   suit   for   getting <\/p>\n<p>    possession   of   the   said   premises,   in   which   a   decree   for   possession   was <\/p>\n<p>    passed in favour of the petitioner.   It is further the case of the petitioner <\/p>\n<p>    that the petitioner got the decree executed and entered into possession, <\/p>\n<p>    but subsequently, after some time, the respondent No.4 again entered the <\/p>\n<p>    premises by trespassing the same with the alleged help of police constables <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                 ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 17:49:46 :::<\/span><br \/>\n     ssp                                        3                                 WP 734  of 2003<\/p>\n<p>    and in that view of the matter, this petition has been filed in which police <\/p>\n<p>    authorities have been joined as respondents and prayer for possession is <\/p>\n<p>    made so far as respondent No.4 is concerned.\n<\/p>\n<p>    2.              The above petition has been resisted on behalf of the police <\/p>\n<p>    department.   An affidavit-in-reply has been filed by Mr.Ramesh Mahadev <\/p>\n<p>    Waghmare at page 49.   In para Nos.3 and 4 it is averred as under : &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>              &#8220;3. I say that I was attached to the Dadar Police Station<br \/>\n              and   was   working   thereat   as   Police   Sub-Inspector   for   the <\/p>\n<p>              period September 2002 till 22nd December, 2004.  I say that<br \/>\n              as per records of the Worli Koliwada Police Chowki, Beat<br \/>\n              No.1,   the   possession   in   respect   of   the   writ   premises   was <\/p>\n<p>              taken   in   execution   of   a   decree   passed   in   RE   Suit   No.<br \/>\n              1377\/4520\/1993   on   29th  October,   2002   as   more<br \/>\n              particularly elucidated in the Station Diary Entry Nos.6 and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>              7.  I say that as per the said records, possession of the writ<br \/>\n              premises   was   taken   from   the   respondent   No.4   and   one <\/p>\n<p>              Vinod Tailors, under police protection.  I crave leave to refer<br \/>\n              to and reply upon the extract of the Station Diary as and <\/p>\n<p>              when produced.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>              4. I say that on 10th  January, 2003, at about 8.30 p.m.,<br \/>\n              the respondent No.4 approached the Worli Koliwada Beat<br \/>\n              Chowki, with a complaint against the petitioner.   I say that <\/p>\n<p>              at that time, Head Constable Ashok Bajirao Bhonsle, Police<br \/>\n              Constable   Jagdish   Nivruti   Kamble   were   on   duty.     The<br \/>\n              respondent No.4 alleged that the petitioner had allegedly<br \/>\n              assaulted him and had caused damage to his shop premises. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>              Accordingly,   the   said   police   constables   accompanied   the <\/p>\n<p>              respondent   No.4   to   the   site   whereat   the   petitioner   was<br \/>\n              found.  I say that the said Constables thereafter, brought the<br \/>\n              petitioner   and   the   respondent   No.4   to   the   Dadar   Police<br \/>\n              Station at about 9.30 p.m.   I say that I was the duty Officer<br \/>\n              at   the   said   time.     I   say   that   the   petitioner   and   the<br \/>\n              respondent  No.4 both claimed to  be  in   possession  of  the<br \/>\n              premises.  It is pertinent to note that at that point of time,<br \/>\n              the petitioner had not informed me that the possessionof <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                             ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 17:49:46 :::<\/span><br \/>\n     ssp                                           4                                  WP 734  of 2003<\/p>\n<p>                the   said   premises   was   taken   in   execution   on   29-10-2002 <\/p>\n<p>                under police protection.  I say that neither me nor the said<br \/>\n                Constables were aware of the said fact.   I say that I called<br \/>\n                upon   both   the   parties   to   produce   the   documents   to <\/p>\n<p>                substantiate   their   rival   claims.     The   petitioner   in   no<br \/>\n                uncertain   terms   told   me   that   she   would   produce   the<br \/>\n                documents   before   me   only   after   consulting   her   lawyer.<br \/>\n                However, she omitted and failed to do so.\n<\/p>\n<p>    3.                The   learned   counsel   for   the   respondents   states   that   the <\/p>\n<p>    decree was in connection with the Shop No.1 and he is in possession of <\/p>\n<p>    Shop No.2 qua which there is no decree.     The learned counsel for the <\/p>\n<p>    petitioner submitted that the entire shop is one and only wooden partition <\/p>\n<p>    was made.   In our view, such a highly disputed question of fact and that <\/p>\n<p>    too involving a private party cannot be examined in our writ jurisdiction <\/p>\n<p>    under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.     The learned counsel for <\/p>\n<p>    the respondents submitted that in fact the original decree was executed <\/p>\n<p>    with the help of the police and it is not correct that the respondent No.4 <\/p>\n<p>    entered into the possession with the help of police, for which he has relied <\/p>\n<p>    upon the affidavit-in-reply.   Considering the above facts and the fact that <\/p>\n<p>    even respondent No.4 has alleged to have trespassed upon the property <\/p>\n<p>    again after the execution of the decree, the appropriate remedy would be <\/p>\n<p>    to file a substantive civil suit to get back possession in accordance with <\/p>\n<p>    law.       The   learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner   has   placed   reliance   on   a <\/p>\n<p>    decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty and  <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                 ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 17:49:46 :::<\/span><br \/>\n     ssp                                           5                                  WP 734  of 2003<\/p>\n<p>    Anr. V\/s. Rajendra Shankar Patil1.     In fact, the said decision does not <\/p>\n<p>    come   to   the   aid   of   the   petitioner   in   any   manner.       The   relevant <\/p>\n<p>    observations of the Supreme Court are reproduced hereinunder :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                15. The facts of the case have been discussed in detail in<br \/>\n                order to show that in a pure dispute of landlord and tenant <\/p>\n<p>                between private parties, a writ petition was entertained by<br \/>\n                the   High   Court.     It   did   not   pass   any   order   on   the   writ<br \/>\n                petition, inter alia, on the ground that there are concurrent<br \/>\n                findings of fact.   If the findings have not been concurrent, <\/p>\n<p>                the High Court might have interfered.   In any event, High<br \/>\n                Court did not hold that a writ petition is not maintainable <\/p>\n<p>                in a dispute between landlord and tenant in which both are<br \/>\n                private parties and the dispute is of civil nature.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                16&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                72. Therefore, a private person becomes amenable to writ<br \/>\n                jurisdiction   only   if   he   is   connected   with   a   statutory<br \/>\n                authority or only if he\/she discharges any official duty.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                73. In   the   instant   case,   none   of   the   above   features   are <\/p>\n<p>                present,   even   then   a   writ   petition   was   filed   in   a   pure<br \/>\n                dispute between landlord and tenant and where the only <\/p>\n<p>                respondent is the plaintiff landlord.  Therefore, High Court<br \/>\n                erred   by   entertaining   the   writ   petition.     However,   the<br \/>\n                petition was dismissed on merits by a rather cryptic order.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>    4.                 Considering the aforesaid ruling of the Supreme Court, a <\/p>\n<p>    dispute   between   the   petitioner   and   the   respondent   No.4   cannot   be <\/p>\n<p>    adjudicated   in   a   petition   filed   under   Article   226   of   the   Constitution   of <\/p>\n<p>    India.   Even though, the respondent No.4 has alleged to have trespassed <\/p>\n<p>    upon the property in question, the remedy would be to file civil suit for <\/p>\n<p>    obtaining   possession.     The   petitioner   could   have   filed   a   complaint   for <\/p>\n<p>    1 2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 661<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                 ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 17:49:46 :::<\/span><br \/>\n     ssp                                            6                                   WP 734  of 2003<\/p>\n<p>    illegal trespass before the police, instead she has rushed to this Court.   It <\/p>\n<p>    is not a case where the authorities are in any way instrumental in getting <\/p>\n<p>    the   respondent   No.4   into   the   premises.       In   view   of   the   same,   it   is <\/p>\n<p>    obviously a   property dispute between the petitioner and the respondent <\/p>\n<p>    No.4 and the respondent No.4 even if illegally having taken possession, <\/p>\n<p>    the writ jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked.  If such petitions are <\/p>\n<p>    entertained, then even a private dispute of landlord and tenant will be <\/p>\n<p>    brought before this Court.   The learned counsel for the petitioner, having <\/p>\n<p>    realized   this   difficulty,   submits   that   the   petitioner   would   like   to   file <\/p>\n<p>    appropriate proceedings before the Civil Court.    If any such proceedings <\/p>\n<p>    are   filed,   it   is   for   the   appropriate   Court   to   consider   whether   such <\/p>\n<p>    proceedings are required to be expedited in view of the fact that the above <\/p>\n<p>    petition was being prosecuted by the petitioner in this Court since 2003.\n<\/p>\n<p>    5.                In   the   light   of   what   is   stated   above,   the   writ   petition   is <\/p>\n<p>    dismissed.    Rule discharged.\n<\/p>\n<pre>          ( R.M.SAVANT, J. )                                 ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )\n\n\n\n\n\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                  ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:49:46 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Bombay High Court Gully vs Mr.Ranjitsing Sharma on 10 October, 2011 Bench: P. B. Majmudar, R. M. Savant ssp 1 WP 734 of 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.734 OF 2003 Pushpalata Gopal Worlikar, Age 45 years, Occu &#8211; Household, Residing at Gopal House, Shreeram [&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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-41786","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Gully vs Mr.Ranjitsing Sharma on 10 October, 2011 - 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\/gully-vs-mr-ranjitsing-sharma-on-10-october-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gully vs Mr.Ranjitsing Sharma on 10 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gully-vs-mr-ranjitsing-sharma-on-10-october-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-10-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-27T16:10:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gully-vs-mr-ranjitsing-sharma-on-10-october-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gully-vs-mr-ranjitsing-sharma-on-10-october-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gully vs Mr.Ranjitsing Sharma on 10 October, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-27T16:10:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gully-vs-mr-ranjitsing-sharma-on-10-october-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1255,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gully-vs-mr-ranjitsing-sharma-on-10-october-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gully-vs-mr-ranjitsing-sharma-on-10-october-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gully-vs-mr-ranjitsing-sharma-on-10-october-2011\",\"name\":\"Gully vs Mr.Ranjitsing Sharma on 10 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-27T16:10:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gully-vs-mr-ranjitsing-sharma-on-10-october-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gully-vs-mr-ranjitsing-sharma-on-10-october-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gully-vs-mr-ranjitsing-sharma-on-10-october-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gully vs Mr.Ranjitsing Sharma on 10 October, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Gully vs Mr.Ranjitsing Sharma on 10 October, 2011 - 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\/gully-vs-mr-ranjitsing-sharma-on-10-october-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gully vs Mr.Ranjitsing Sharma on 10 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gully-vs-mr-ranjitsing-sharma-on-10-october-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-10-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-27T16:10:21+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gully-vs-mr-ranjitsing-sharma-on-10-october-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gully-vs-mr-ranjitsing-sharma-on-10-october-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gully vs Mr.Ranjitsing Sharma on 10 October, 2011","datePublished":"2011-10-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-27T16:10:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gully-vs-mr-ranjitsing-sharma-on-10-october-2011"},"wordCount":1255,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gully-vs-mr-ranjitsing-sharma-on-10-october-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gully-vs-mr-ranjitsing-sharma-on-10-october-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gully-vs-mr-ranjitsing-sharma-on-10-october-2011","name":"Gully vs Mr.Ranjitsing Sharma on 10 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-10-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-27T16:10:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gully-vs-mr-ranjitsing-sharma-on-10-october-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gully-vs-mr-ranjitsing-sharma-on-10-october-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gully-vs-mr-ranjitsing-sharma-on-10-october-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gully vs Mr.Ranjitsing Sharma on 10 October, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41786","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=41786"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41786\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=41786"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=41786"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=41786"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}