{"id":42810,"date":"2009-04-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-asari-vs-pitchiah-on-16-april-2009"},"modified":"2019-03-04T04:29:31","modified_gmt":"2019-03-03T22:59:31","slug":"ramalingam-asari-vs-pitchiah-on-16-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-asari-vs-pitchiah-on-16-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"Ramalingam Asari vs Pitchiah on 16 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ramalingam Asari vs Pitchiah on 16 April, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 16\/04\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL\n\nC.R.P.(NPD).No.504 OF 2009\n\n1.  Ramalingam Asari\n\n2.  Ganapathy Raman\n\n3.  Kailasa Nathan\n\n4.  Venkatasubramanian\t...\tPetitioners\n\n\nVs\n\nPitchiah\t\t...\tRespondent\n\n\tPetition filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India against the\norder dated 22\/10\/2008 passed in C.M.A.No.1 of 2007 by the Sub-Court, Tenkasi\nconfirming the order dated 17\/10\/2006 passed in I.A.No.1273 of 2006 in\nO.S.No.392 of 2004 by the Principal District Munsif, Tenkasi.\n\n!For petitioner  ...\tMr.R.Maheswaran\n^\n- - - - -\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>     The civil revision petitioners\/petitioners\/D.1 to D.4 have filed this Civil<br \/>\nRevision Petition as against the order dated 22\/10\/2008 in C.M.A.No.1 of 2007<br \/>\npassed by the learned Sub-Jude, Tenkasi in confirming the order dated 17\/10\/2006<br \/>\npassed in I.A.No.1273 of 2006 in O.S. No. 392 of 2004 by the learned Principal<br \/>\nDistrict Munsif, Tenkasi.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.  The First Appellate Court while passing orders in C.M.A.No.1 of 2007<br \/>\non 22\/10\/2008 has inter alia observed that the revision petitioners\/appellants<br \/>\nhave already set themselves ex parte for two times and that for the third time,<br \/>\nas against the revision petitioners, an ex parte order has been passed and to<br \/>\nset aside the same, an application has been filed and that the appeal is not to<br \/>\nbe allowed in view of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Salem Bar<br \/>\nAssociation case and consequently, dismissed the appeal, thereby confirming the<br \/>\norder passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.1273 of 2006.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.  The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submit that the<br \/>\nCourts below have not adopted a liberal approach when the revision petitioners<br \/>\nhave filed their written statement already and the matter has been listed for<br \/>\ntrial and further, that both the Courts have not taken note of the fact that<br \/>\neach case will have to be decided on merits of the matter and there cannot be a<br \/>\nrigid rule in this regard in exercising the power of discretion in regard to the<br \/>\nmatter of setting aside the ex parte decree and in fact, the suit claim itself<br \/>\nis not maintainable since the revision petitioners\/defendants have received only<br \/>\nconsideration for the land sold and not for the excess and therefore, prays for<br \/>\nallowing the Civil Revision Petition in the interest of justice.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.  It is to be noted that the main suit in the present case  has been<br \/>\nfiled on 30\/10\/2003 on the file of the learned Principal Judge and later has<br \/>\nbeen transferred to the file of the learned District Munsif, Tenkasi and taken<br \/>\non file as O.S.No.392 of 2004 and when the matter has been posted for filing for<br \/>\nwritten statement at that time, the written statement has not been filed and<br \/>\ntherefore, an ex parte order was passed and later to set aside the ex parte<br \/>\norder, an application has been filed which has been allowed later and finally,<br \/>\nthe case has been posted for enquiry  on 19\/7\/2004 and the respondent\/plaintiff<br \/>\nhas been examined and on 21\/7\/2004, the matter has been posted for cross-<br \/>\nexamination and documents have been marked and later, the case has been<br \/>\nadjourned to 21\/7\/2004 in view of the fact that the Officer has been on leave on<br \/>\n23\/7\/2004 and again for the purpose of cross-examination, the matter has been<br \/>\nadjourned to 29\/7\/2004 and once again adjourned to 31\/7\/2004 for cross-<br \/>\nexamination and on 3\/8\/2004, when the matter has been posted for cross-<br \/>\nexamination, the matter has been passed over at the instance of the revision<br \/>\npetitioners\/appellants and on 3\/8\/2004, when the matter has been called after<br \/>\nlunch recess, the revision petitioners have not appeared and they have been set<br \/>\nex parte.  From the above factual details, it is quite evident that the revision<br \/>\npetitioners\/appellants\/petitioners have been given adequate opportunities of<br \/>\nfive days to cross-examine the respondent\/plaintiff and they have not availed<br \/>\nthe same and suffice it for this Court to point out those opportunities have<br \/>\nremained otiose.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.  It is the further contention of the revision petitioners that a<br \/>\nliberal view has to be taken in regard to setting aside the ex parte decree\/ex<br \/>\nparte orders in a Court of law and a pedantic approach need not be adopted.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6.  Generally speaking in matters regarding setting aside the ex parte<br \/>\ndecree\/ex parte order applications, a Court of law can take a liberal view.  In<br \/>\nshort, a Court of law may not harp on technicalities overriding the cause of<br \/>\nsubstantial justice being delivered to the parties.  The term &#8216;sufficient cause&#8217;<br \/>\nthough will have to be normally viewed in a liberal fashion yet on the present<br \/>\nfacts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that<br \/>\nthe revision petitioners\/appellants\/petitioners have been given five times<br \/>\nadequate opportunities of cross-examining the respondent\/plaintiff and they have<br \/>\nnot availed of the same.  It is needless to say that earlier an application has<br \/>\nbeen filed to set aside the ex parte order and that has been set aside by the<br \/>\ntrial Court.  When once again the main suit has been posted for cross-<br \/>\nexamination, the appellants\/revision petitioners on 3\/8\/2004 have made a request<br \/>\nto the concerned Court to pass over the matter and after lunch recess, when the<br \/>\nmatter has been taken up again by the Court, then at that time also, the<br \/>\nrespondents have not appeared and hence, they were set ex parte.  Therefore, the<br \/>\nconduct of the revision petitioners\/appellants\/petitioners clearly points out to<br \/>\nthe fact that they are guilty of latches and not diligent enough in conducting<br \/>\nthe proceedings before the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7.  When the petitioners have known the proceedings of the trial Court and<br \/>\nwhen they have adequate knowledge of the progress of the case before the trial<br \/>\nCourt, then they cannot adopt a lackadaisical  or laissez-faire attitude in the<br \/>\nconsidered opinion of this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8.  In the light of the detailed discussions mentioned supra and looking<br \/>\nat from any point of view, this Court is of the considered view that the order<br \/>\npassed by the First Appellate Authority in dismissing the Civil Miscellaneous<br \/>\nAppeal No.1 of 2007 and thereby confirming the order passed by the trial Court<br \/>\nin I.A.No.1272 of 2006 does not suffer from any  material irregularity or patent<br \/>\nillegality in the eye of law and resultantly,  this Court comes to an inevitable<br \/>\nconclusion that there is no merit in the Civil Revision Petition and<br \/>\nconsequently, the same is hereby dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9.  In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, leaving  the<br \/>\nparties to bear their own costs. The order passed by the First Appellate<br \/>\nAuthority in C.M.A.No.1 of 2007 is affirmed by the reasons assigned in this<br \/>\nrevision.\n<\/p>\n<p>mvs.\n<\/p>\n<p>To\n<\/p>\n<p>1.  The Sub-Court, Tenkasi\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Principal District Munsif, Tenkasi.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.  The D.R.(Judicial), Madurai Bench of Madras\tHigh Court, &#8211; to<br \/>\nwatch and report<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Ramalingam Asari vs Pitchiah on 16 April, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16\/04\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL C.R.P.(NPD).No.504 OF 2009 1. Ramalingam Asari 2. Ganapathy Raman 3. Kailasa Nathan 4. Venkatasubramanian &#8230; Petitioners Vs Pitchiah &#8230; Respondent Petition filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of [&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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-42810","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Ramalingam Asari vs Pitchiah on 16 April, 2009 - 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\/ramalingam-asari-vs-pitchiah-on-16-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramalingam Asari vs Pitchiah on 16 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-asari-vs-pitchiah-on-16-april-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-04-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-03T22:59:31+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramalingam-asari-vs-pitchiah-on-16-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramalingam-asari-vs-pitchiah-on-16-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramalingam Asari vs Pitchiah on 16 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-03T22:59:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramalingam-asari-vs-pitchiah-on-16-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1049,\"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\\\/ramalingam-asari-vs-pitchiah-on-16-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramalingam-asari-vs-pitchiah-on-16-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramalingam-asari-vs-pitchiah-on-16-april-2009\",\"name\":\"Ramalingam Asari vs Pitchiah on 16 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-03T22:59:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramalingam-asari-vs-pitchiah-on-16-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramalingam-asari-vs-pitchiah-on-16-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramalingam-asari-vs-pitchiah-on-16-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramalingam Asari vs Pitchiah on 16 April, 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":"Ramalingam Asari vs Pitchiah on 16 April, 2009 - 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\/ramalingam-asari-vs-pitchiah-on-16-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramalingam Asari vs Pitchiah on 16 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-asari-vs-pitchiah-on-16-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-03T22:59:31+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-asari-vs-pitchiah-on-16-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-asari-vs-pitchiah-on-16-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramalingam Asari vs Pitchiah on 16 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-03T22:59:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-asari-vs-pitchiah-on-16-april-2009"},"wordCount":1049,"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\/ramalingam-asari-vs-pitchiah-on-16-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-asari-vs-pitchiah-on-16-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-asari-vs-pitchiah-on-16-april-2009","name":"Ramalingam Asari vs Pitchiah on 16 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-03T22:59:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-asari-vs-pitchiah-on-16-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-asari-vs-pitchiah-on-16-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-asari-vs-pitchiah-on-16-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramalingam Asari vs Pitchiah on 16 April, 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\/42810","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=42810"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42810\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=42810"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=42810"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=42810"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}