{"id":45432,"date":"2011-02-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-02-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shivam-housing-pvt-ltd-amp-ors-vs-thakur-mithilesh-kumar-singh-on-25-february-2011"},"modified":"2017-12-10T16:54:53","modified_gmt":"2017-12-10T11:24:53","slug":"shivam-housing-pvt-ltd-amp-ors-vs-thakur-mithilesh-kumar-singh-on-25-february-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shivam-housing-pvt-ltd-amp-ors-vs-thakur-mithilesh-kumar-singh-on-25-february-2011","title":{"rendered":"Shivam Housing Pvt.Ltd &amp;Amp; Ors vs Thakur Mithilesh Kumar Singh on 25 February, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Patna High Court &#8211; Orders<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Shivam Housing Pvt.Ltd &amp;Amp; Ors vs Thakur Mithilesh Kumar Singh on 25 February, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA\n                        MA No.187 of 2007\n\n                      SHIVAM HOUSING PVT.LTD &amp; ANR.\n                                  Versus\n                   THAKUR MITHILESH KUMAR SINGH &amp; ANR.\n                                -----------\n                                    ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>20.   25.02.2011                I have already heard Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi,<\/p>\n<p>                      the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants<\/p>\n<p>                      and Mr. S.K.Verma, the learned senior counsel appearing<\/p>\n<p>                      on behalf of the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                (2) This Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed<\/p>\n<p>                      under Section 37(i) (b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation<\/p>\n<p>                      Act, 1996 against the order dated 21.04.2007 passed by<\/p>\n<p>                      the learned Sub Judge I, Patna City in Miscellaneous<\/p>\n<p>                      Application   No.3   of   2007   whereby   the   Sub   Judge<\/p>\n<p>                      dismissed the Miscellaneous Application filed by the<\/p>\n<p>                      appellants under Section 34 of the Arbitration and<\/p>\n<p>                      Conciliation Act, 1996.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                (3) It appears that the respondents filed<\/p>\n<p>                      request case no.36 of 2005 before this Court for<\/p>\n<p>                      appointment of Arbitrator and by terms of order dated<\/p>\n<p>                      03.07.2006, Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice B.P.Sharma(retired) was<\/p>\n<p>                      appointed Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between<\/p>\n<p>                      the parties arising out of development agreement in<\/p>\n<p>                      question. Since Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice B.P.Sharma declined<\/p>\n<p>                      to proceed with the arbitration, this Court by order dated<\/p>\n<p>                      08.09.2006      appointed        Hon&#8217;ble    Mr.        Justice<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                   2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>R.N.Prasad(retired)   as   Arbitrator    to    adjudicate   the<\/p>\n<p>dispute between he parties.       The Arbitrator vide his<\/p>\n<p>award   dated   05.02.2007    held      that   the   claimants-<\/p>\n<p>respondents are entitled to Rs.49,32,000 from the<\/p>\n<p>appellants. The appellants then filed an application under<\/p>\n<p>Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,<\/p>\n<p>1996(Annexure-1 to this memo of appeal) before the<\/p>\n<p>Court of Sub Judge I, Patna City on 16.04.2007 for<\/p>\n<p>setting aside the award.\n<\/p>\n<p>          (4) By impugned order dated 21.04.2007, the<\/p>\n<p>learned Sub Judge held that this application under<\/p>\n<p>Section 34 has been filed after lapse of prescribed time<\/p>\n<p>and no condonation petition has been filed on behalf of<\/p>\n<p>the petitioner and also held that the Sub Judge has got<\/p>\n<p>no power to set aside the order dated 05.02.2007 passed<\/p>\n<p>by Ex-Justice, Mr. R.N. Prasad in Arbitration Case No.2 of<\/p>\n<p>2006 and accordingly, the Miscellaneous Case No.3 of<\/p>\n<p>2007 was dismissed at the admission stage itself.<\/p>\n<p>          (5) The learned counsel for the appellants<\/p>\n<p>submitted that according to Section 34 (iii) of the<\/p>\n<p>Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an application for<\/p>\n<p>setting aside award can be filed within three months from<\/p>\n<p>the date of the award and admittedly, in this case, the<\/p>\n<p>award is dated 05.02.2007 and the application under<\/p>\n<p>Section 34 was filed on 16.04.2007 which is within three<\/p>\n<p>months. The learned counsel further submitted that the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                     3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>learned Court below has wrongly held that Sub Judge has<\/p>\n<p>got no power to set aside the award as it has been<\/p>\n<p>passed by Ex-Justice. According to the learned counsel in<\/p>\n<p>view of the provisions of Section 34 read with Section<\/p>\n<p>2(i)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the<\/p>\n<p>application is required to be filed before the Court as<\/p>\n<p>defined under Section 2(i)(e) of the said Act and the said<\/p>\n<p>Court has the jurisdiction to entertain an application and<\/p>\n<p>it could only be the Principal Civil Court of original<\/p>\n<p>jurisdiction which could entertain such an application as<\/p>\n<p>contemplated under Section 2(i)(e) of the Act.             The<\/p>\n<p>learned counsel in support of his contention relied upon a<\/p>\n<p>decision reported in 2000 Volume 4, P.L.J.R. 814.<\/p>\n<p>           (6) On the other hand, the learned counsel for<\/p>\n<p>the respondents submitted that Subordinate Judge of a<\/p>\n<p>District is not the Principal Civil Court of original<\/p>\n<p>jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 34<\/p>\n<p>of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The learned<\/p>\n<p>counsel submitted that only District Judge can be termed<\/p>\n<p>as Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a District.<\/p>\n<p>According to Section 18 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam<\/p>\n<p>Civil Court Act, 1887, the jurisdiction of District Judge<\/p>\n<p>extends to all original suits for the time being cognizable<\/p>\n<p>by Civil Courts.    The learned counsel further submitted<\/p>\n<p>that this Court in the case of Executive Engineer vs. Ms.<\/p>\n<p>R.L.Singh reported in 1997, Volume 1, P.L.J.R. 523 has<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                      4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>not considered Section 18 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam<\/p>\n<p>Civil Court Act, 1887 and held that Subordinate Judge is<\/p>\n<p>a Civil Court of original jurisdiction and therefore,<\/p>\n<p>application under Section 8 of the Act was maintainable.<\/p>\n<p>Subsequently, the said decision has been followed again<\/p>\n<p>in 2000, Volume 4, P.L.J.R. 814(Md. Sadique vs. State of<\/p>\n<p>Bihar) and while following the said decision, it has been<\/p>\n<p>observed that as per Civil Court Act, 1887, the District<\/p>\n<p>Judge or the Additional District Judge have got no original<\/p>\n<p>jurisdiction and the sole power has been given to the<\/p>\n<p>Subordinate Judge under the Act which is contrary to the<\/p>\n<p>provision of law.\n<\/p>\n<p>          (7)      The learned counsel for the respondents<\/p>\n<p>conceded that the application under Section 34 was filed<\/p>\n<p>within time. Therefore, so far that point is concerned, no<\/p>\n<p>dispute is raised by the respondents.      The only dispute<\/p>\n<p>raised is that Subordinate Judge is not a Court as defined<\/p>\n<p>under Section 2(i)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation<\/p>\n<p>Act, 1996. In such circumstances, the question arises for<\/p>\n<p>consideration is as to &#8220;whether the application under<\/p>\n<p>Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is<\/p>\n<p>maintainable before the Subordinate Judge or before the<\/p>\n<p>District Judge.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>          (8)      Section 2(i) (e) defines the term &#8220;Court&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>as follows:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>              (e) &#8220;Court&#8221; means the principal civil<br \/>\n              court of original jurisdiction in a<br \/>\n              district, and includes the High Court in<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                      5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>           exercise of its ordinary original civil<br \/>\n           jurisdiction, having jurisdiction to<br \/>\n           decide the questions forming the<br \/>\n           subject-matter of the arbitration if the<br \/>\n           same had been the subject-matter of<br \/>\n           a suit, but does not include any civil<br \/>\n           court of a grade inferior to such<br \/>\n           principal civil court, or any court of<br \/>\n           small causes;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>           (9) Therefore, according to the definition, it<\/p>\n<p>does not include any Civil Court of a grade inferior to<\/p>\n<p>such Principal Civil Court or any Court of small causes.<\/p>\n<p>So far the word &#8220;Principal&#8221; is concerned, according to<\/p>\n<p>Black&#8217;s Law Dictionary, it means chief, leading, most<\/p>\n<p>important or considerable, primary, original, highest in<\/p>\n<p>rank,   authority,       character,   importance   or   degree.<\/p>\n<p>Likewise, in Law Lexicon the word &#8220;Principal&#8221; is described<\/p>\n<p>to mean highest in rank, authority, character, importance<\/p>\n<p>or degree, most considerable or important, chief, main.<\/p>\n<p>Therefore, the word &#8220;Principal&#8221; clearly indicates only one<\/p>\n<p>Court being the highest in rank or chief.<\/p>\n<p>          (10)       Section 18 of the Bengal, Agra and<\/p>\n<p>Assam Civil Court Act reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>          &#8220;18. Extent of original jurisdiction of<br \/>\n          District or Subordinate Judge- Save<br \/>\n          as   otherwise    provided     by  any<br \/>\n          enactment for the time being in force,<br \/>\n          the jurisdiction of a District Judge or<br \/>\n          Subordinate Judge extends, subject<br \/>\n          to the provisions of Section 15 of the<br \/>\n          Code of Civil Procedure, (1908) to all<br \/>\n          original suits for the time being<br \/>\n          cognizable by Civil Courts.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>          (11)   In view of the above provision, the<\/p>\n<p>jurisdiction of District Judge extends to all original suits<\/p>\n<p>for the time being cognizable by Civil Court but the suits<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                      6<\/span><\/p>\n<p>are filed before the Sub Judge because according to<\/p>\n<p>Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure every suit shall<\/p>\n<p>be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent<\/p>\n<p>to try it. Only because the suits are instituted before Sub<\/p>\n<p>Judge, it cannot be said that the District Judge has no<\/p>\n<p>original jurisdiction to try the suit. Further Court of Sub<\/p>\n<p>Judge is inferior in grade than that of District Judge so<\/p>\n<p>the Court of Sub Judge cannot be the Principal Civil Court<\/p>\n<p>in a District.\n<\/p>\n<p>           (12) Section 3(17) of the General Clauses Act<\/p>\n<p>defines &#8220;District Judge&#8221; as the Judge of a Principal Civil<\/p>\n<p>Court of original jurisdiction but shall not include a High<\/p>\n<p>Court in the exercise of its ordinary or extra ordinary<\/p>\n<p>original Civil jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n<p>           (13) In the case of Executive Engineer vs. Ms.<\/p>\n<p>R.L.Singh, a Bench of this Court while considering the<\/p>\n<p>definition of the term &#8220;Court&#8221; as provided under Section 2<\/p>\n<p>(i) (e) of the 1996 Act at paragraph 6 has observed that<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;it can mean only Court having Civil jurisdiction over the<\/p>\n<p>subject matter of reference.   Of course, the expression<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Civil Court&#8221; as used in this Section does not include the<\/p>\n<p>Revenue Court. Under the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil<\/p>\n<p>Court, 1887, the Court of Subordinate Judge is a Civil<\/p>\n<p>Court having original jurisdiction.&#8221; With this observation,<\/p>\n<p>it was held that application under Section 8 of the 1996<\/p>\n<p>Act was maintainable before the Sub Judge.            This<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                           7<\/span><\/p>\n<p>decision has been followed in the case of Md. Sadique vs.<\/p>\n<p>State of Bihar(supra) and at paragraph 4, it was<\/p>\n<p>observed that as per Civil Court Act, 1887, the District<\/p>\n<p>Judge or Additional District Judge have got no original<\/p>\n<p>jurisdiction for deciding a suit and also observed that the<\/p>\n<p>sole power has been given to the Sub Judge under the<\/p>\n<p>Act and in that way, it was held that the Sub Judge<\/p>\n<p>should be construed as the Principal Civil Court in a<\/p>\n<p>District for the purpose of entertaining a suit of original<\/p>\n<p>jurisdiction        and       not    the      District        Judge.        These<\/p>\n<p>observations appear to be contrary to Section 18 of the<\/p>\n<p>Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Court Act, 1887.                               These<\/p>\n<p>decisions      of    single         Benches     have          been     followed<\/p>\n<p>subsequently in other decisions by this Court which are<\/p>\n<p>also of single Bench. It may be mentioned here that in<\/p>\n<p>the case of Executive Engineer (supra), this Court was<\/p>\n<p>considering the case under Section 8 of the 1996 Act. So<\/p>\n<p>far Section 8 of the Act of 1996 is concerned, this<\/p>\n<p>provision confers power on judicial authority to refer the<\/p>\n<p>parties   to    arbitration         where     there      is    a     arbitration<\/p>\n<p>agreement.          Therefore, all authorities which can be<\/p>\n<p>described as judicial authorities in the sense that they<\/p>\n<p>administer justice have got jurisdiction to refer the<\/p>\n<p>dispute     and     in    that      context    it   can       be     held    that<\/p>\n<p>Subordinate Judge can be described as judicial authority.<\/p>\n<p>So far Section 34 is concerned, it specially refer to Court<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                     8<\/span><\/p>\n<p>which has been defined under Section 2(i)(e) of 1996<\/p>\n<p>Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>           (14)     In the definition as provided under<\/p>\n<p>Section 2(i)(e) of 1996 Act, the words &#8220;means&#8221; and<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;includes&#8221; and the expression &#8220;does not include&#8221;, have<\/p>\n<p>been used. According to the word &#8220;means&#8221; indicates that<\/p>\n<p>definition is a hard and fast definition and no other<\/p>\n<p>meaning can be assigned to the expression.            The word<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;includes&#8221; is a term of enlargement. The expression does<\/p>\n<p>not include any Civil Courts of a grade inferior to said<\/p>\n<p>Principal Civil Court or any Court of small causes<\/p>\n<p>occurring in Section 2(i)(e) further restricts the meaning<\/p>\n<p>of the term &#8220;Court&#8221; defined therein.       It clearly excludes<\/p>\n<p>the Courts inferior to the Principal Court of original<\/p>\n<p>jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n<p>           (15)     In view of the above position, the<\/p>\n<p>decisions of this Court referred to above in the case of<\/p>\n<p>Executive Engineer and also in the case of Md. Sadique<\/p>\n<p>and other Single Bench decisions subsequent to the<\/p>\n<p>above i.e. 2001(2) P.L.J.R. 530(Bhopal Singh and others<\/p>\n<p>vs.    Nagendra   Narain    Singh)   and    2000(4)    P.L.J.R.<\/p>\n<p>843(Thakur Prasad Singh vs. The State of Bihar &amp; Anr.)<\/p>\n<p>requires re-consideration by a larger Bench for deciding<\/p>\n<p>the question as to &#8220;whether it is the Subordinate Judge or<\/p>\n<p>the District Judge which should be construed as being the<\/p>\n<p>Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district for<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                             9<\/span><\/p>\n<p>          the purpose of a petition under Section 34 of the<\/p>\n<p>          Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>                    (16)   No decision of the Hon&#8217;ble Apex Court<\/p>\n<p>          deciding the aforesaid question is brought to the notice of<\/p>\n<p>          this Court. However, the other High Courts have decided<\/p>\n<p>          the questions and have taken contrary view than that of<\/p>\n<p>          this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>                    (17)   The office may place this matter before<\/p>\n<p>          the Hon&#8217;ble the Chief Justice for constitution of a larger<\/p>\n<p>          Bench to decide the above question.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>                                  ( Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)<br \/>\nSaurabh\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Patna High Court &#8211; Orders Shivam Housing Pvt.Ltd &amp;Amp; Ors vs Thakur Mithilesh Kumar Singh on 25 February, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.187 of 2007 SHIVAM HOUSING PVT.LTD &amp; ANR. Versus THAKUR MITHILESH KUMAR SINGH &amp; ANR. &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211; ORDER 20. 25.02.2011 I have already heard Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, [&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":[8,27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-45432","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-patna-high-court-orders"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Shivam Housing Pvt.Ltd &amp;Amp; Ors vs Thakur Mithilesh Kumar Singh on 25 February, 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\/shivam-housing-pvt-ltd-amp-ors-vs-thakur-mithilesh-kumar-singh-on-25-february-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shivam Housing Pvt.Ltd &amp;Amp; Ors vs Thakur Mithilesh Kumar Singh on 25 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shivam-housing-pvt-ltd-amp-ors-vs-thakur-mithilesh-kumar-singh-on-25-february-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=\"2011-02-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-10T11:24:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shivam-housing-pvt-ltd-amp-ors-vs-thakur-mithilesh-kumar-singh-on-25-february-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shivam-housing-pvt-ltd-amp-ors-vs-thakur-mithilesh-kumar-singh-on-25-february-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shivam Housing Pvt.Ltd &amp;Amp; Ors vs Thakur Mithilesh Kumar Singh on 25 February, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-02-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-10T11:24:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shivam-housing-pvt-ltd-amp-ors-vs-thakur-mithilesh-kumar-singh-on-25-february-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1881,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Patna High Court - Orders\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shivam-housing-pvt-ltd-amp-ors-vs-thakur-mithilesh-kumar-singh-on-25-february-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shivam-housing-pvt-ltd-amp-ors-vs-thakur-mithilesh-kumar-singh-on-25-february-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shivam-housing-pvt-ltd-amp-ors-vs-thakur-mithilesh-kumar-singh-on-25-february-2011\",\"name\":\"Shivam Housing Pvt.Ltd &amp;Amp; Ors vs Thakur Mithilesh Kumar Singh on 25 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-02-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-10T11:24:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shivam-housing-pvt-ltd-amp-ors-vs-thakur-mithilesh-kumar-singh-on-25-february-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shivam-housing-pvt-ltd-amp-ors-vs-thakur-mithilesh-kumar-singh-on-25-february-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shivam-housing-pvt-ltd-amp-ors-vs-thakur-mithilesh-kumar-singh-on-25-february-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shivam Housing Pvt.Ltd &amp;Amp; Ors vs Thakur Mithilesh Kumar Singh on 25 February, 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":"Shivam Housing Pvt.Ltd &amp;Amp; Ors vs Thakur Mithilesh Kumar Singh on 25 February, 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\/shivam-housing-pvt-ltd-amp-ors-vs-thakur-mithilesh-kumar-singh-on-25-february-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shivam Housing Pvt.Ltd &amp;Amp; Ors vs Thakur Mithilesh Kumar Singh on 25 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shivam-housing-pvt-ltd-amp-ors-vs-thakur-mithilesh-kumar-singh-on-25-february-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-02-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-10T11:24:53+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shivam-housing-pvt-ltd-amp-ors-vs-thakur-mithilesh-kumar-singh-on-25-february-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shivam-housing-pvt-ltd-amp-ors-vs-thakur-mithilesh-kumar-singh-on-25-february-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shivam Housing Pvt.Ltd &amp;Amp; Ors vs Thakur Mithilesh Kumar Singh on 25 February, 2011","datePublished":"2011-02-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-10T11:24:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shivam-housing-pvt-ltd-amp-ors-vs-thakur-mithilesh-kumar-singh-on-25-february-2011"},"wordCount":1881,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Patna High Court - Orders"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shivam-housing-pvt-ltd-amp-ors-vs-thakur-mithilesh-kumar-singh-on-25-february-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shivam-housing-pvt-ltd-amp-ors-vs-thakur-mithilesh-kumar-singh-on-25-february-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shivam-housing-pvt-ltd-amp-ors-vs-thakur-mithilesh-kumar-singh-on-25-february-2011","name":"Shivam Housing Pvt.Ltd &amp;Amp; Ors vs Thakur Mithilesh Kumar Singh on 25 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-02-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-10T11:24:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shivam-housing-pvt-ltd-amp-ors-vs-thakur-mithilesh-kumar-singh-on-25-february-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shivam-housing-pvt-ltd-amp-ors-vs-thakur-mithilesh-kumar-singh-on-25-february-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shivam-housing-pvt-ltd-amp-ors-vs-thakur-mithilesh-kumar-singh-on-25-february-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shivam Housing Pvt.Ltd &amp;Amp; Ors vs Thakur Mithilesh Kumar Singh on 25 February, 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\/45432","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=45432"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/45432\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=45432"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=45432"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=45432"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}