{"id":4626,"date":"2011-08-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-vs-abdul-on-24-august-2011"},"modified":"2019-01-28T19:25:09","modified_gmt":"2019-01-28T13:55:09","slug":"shri-vs-abdul-on-24-august-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-vs-abdul-on-24-august-2011","title":{"rendered":"Shri vs Abdul on 24 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Shri vs Abdul on 24 August, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Rajesh H.Shukla,<\/div>\n
  \n Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n    \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCRA\/40\/2011\t 9\/ 9\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCIVIL\nREVISION APPLICATION No. 40 of 2011\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA\n \n \n=========================================\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n=========================================\n \n\nSHRI\nRAJAJI RAMDEV & 1 - Applicant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nABDUL\nAVVAL HABIBBULAH MANSURI & 2 - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nMB GANDHI for Applicant(s) : 1 - 2.MR CHINMAY M GANDHI for\nApplicant(s) : 1 - 2. \nNOTICE SERVED BY DS for Opponent(s) : 1 -\n3. \nMR DC DAVE for Opponent(s) : 1 -\n3. \n=========================================\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n:  09\/05 \/2011 \n\n \n\n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
\tThe
\npresent revision application has been filed by the
\nappellants-original defendants for the prayer that the judgment and
\norder passed in Civil Appeal No. 121\/2006 dated 30.12.2010 by the
\nAppellate Bench of the Small Causes, Ahmedabad (lower appellate
\ncourt) confirming the judgment and decree passed in H.R.P. Suit No.
\n920\/98 dated 18.4.2006 may be quashed and set aside on the grounds
\nstated in the memo of this revision application, inter alia, that
\nboth the courts below have failed to appreciate and consider that in
\nthe chawl there are more than 25-30 rooms and while coming to the
\nconclusion both the courts below have only considered the oral
\nevidence of defendant No. 1 that he had left the premises in 1994-95,
\nbut has not considered the entire evidence.  It is also contended
\nthat both the courts below have erred in totally relying upon the
\noral evidence of the plaintiff, exh. 46.  It is also contended that
\nboth the courts have failed to appreciate that as defendant No. 1 had
\nto go to the native place a  mere caretaker in possession cannot be
\nsaid to be a tenant and therefore they have committed a grave error.
\nIt is also contended that both the courts below have failed to
\nappreciate that defendant No. 1 was a mill worker and on closure of
\nmill he had gone to the native place which would not amount to
\nsubletting unless there is a specific evidence.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tLearned
\ncounsel Mr. Gandhi referred to the judgment of both the courts below
\nand also the documentary evidence which has been discussed and
\nsubmitted that the HRP suit was decreed on the grounds of <\/p>\n
(i)
\n\t\t\tarrears of rent<\/p>\n
(ii)\tsubletting<\/p>\n
(iii)
\n\t\t   suitable accommodation acquired by the tenant<\/p>\n
Learned
\ncounsel Mr. Gandhi submitted that as stated in the written statement,
\nrent up to 1993 was paid and Application No. 894\/93 for the standard
\nrent was also filed, an amount of Rs. 1620\/- was deposited as per the
\ncourt’s order.  Learned counsel Mr. Gandhi therefore  submitted that
\nthis ground would not have much relevance and it was not pressed as
\nper the purshis.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tLearned
\ncounsel Mr. Gandhi submitted that therefore the main ground for the
\ndecree is subletting.  For that purpose he referred to exh. 45 as
\nwell as exh. 82 the evidence of one Hiralal, exh. 84 defendants’
\nevidence and also exh. 81 report of the Court Commissioner.  He
\nsubmitted that though both the courts below have come to the
\nconclusion about subletting on the premise that defendant No. 1 had
\ngone to the native place and in fact he has not occupied the premises
\nand he has let out to the sub-tenant, defendant No. S.  However,
\nlearned counsel Mr. Gandhi submitted that both the courts have failed
\nto appreciate that defendant No. 1 was a mill worker and on closure
\nof the mill he had gone to his native place for some time which would
\nnot be a ground for eviction when he has given it for taking care to
\nsomeone and in fact the evidence like electricity bills produced at
\nexh. 59-63 suggest that the premises was used and occupied.  There is
\nno other evidence produced with regard to the defendant No. 1 having
\nalternative accommodation. He submitted that earlier Civil Suit No.
\n921\/98 was filed and it was withdrawn. He submitted that issues were
\nframed at exh. 37 and the issue with regard to non-user has also been
\ndiscussed.  Learned counsel Mr. Gandhi submitted that for the purpose
\nreliance is placed on the oral evidence, but it has  not been
\nappreciated that defendant No. 1 had gone to the native place because
\nof the closure of the mill and he has also stated that he is working
\nin a factory.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tLearned
\ncounsel Mr. Gandhi has referred to and relied upon the judgment in
\nthe case of Manjulaben wd\/o Ramanlal Nathalal v. Gajiben<\/a> wd\/o
\nRamanlal Purshottam, reported in 2001 (1) GLR 186.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tLearned
\ncounsel Mr. D.C. Dave submitted that the concurrent finding of facts
\narrived at by the courts below may not be disturbed in exercise of
\nrevisional jurisdiction as the scope of revisional jurisdiction is
\nlimited. Learned counsel Mr. Dave has submitted that in fact
\ndefendant No. 1 has not even filed the written statement which itself
\nis sufficient to show that he was not occupying and using the
\npremises, but it was sublet to defendant No. 2. Learned counsel Mr.
\nDave submitted that it is well settled that unless the findings are
\nperverse, it may not be disturbed merely because the other view is
\npossible. He therefore submitted that the present revision
\napplication may not be entertained.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tIn
\nview of the rival submissions, it is required to be considered
\nwhether the present revision application can be entertained or not.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tIt
\nis well accepted that the scope of exercise of revisional
\njurisdiction is limited and even though the revision is under sec.
\n29(2) of the Rent Act which empowers the High Court to satisfy itself
\nwhether the judgment of the lower appellate court is according to law
\nor not, however, at the same time, it has also been made clear that
\nthe revisional jurisdiction cannot be equated with the appellate
\njurisdiction.  Though the submissions have been made by learned
\ncounsel Mr. Gandhi that if the court below has failed to appreciate
\nmaterial and evidence which goes to the root of the matter, then it
\nwould be permissible for the High Court to examine.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tIn
\nfact, sec. 29(2) of the Rent is an enabling provision for the High
\nCourt to satisfy that the decision was arrived at construing and
\ninterpreting the provision  of law properly and applying the
\nprinciple of law, the facts and evidence correctly.  In other words,
\nit refers to the application of proper law and interpreting the
\nprovision of law and\/or document and evidence on record.  Therefore,
\nre-appreciation of evidence will not be within the scope and ambit of
\nexercise of revisional jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tA
\nuseful reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex
\nCourt in the case of Patel Vanik Himatlal and ors. v. Patel
\nMohanlal Muljibhai,<\/a> reported in AIR 1989 SC 3325, which
\nhas referred to the scope and ambit of sec. 29(2) of the Bombay Rent
\nAct.  It has also considered the earlier judgment of the Hon’ble apex
\ncourt reported in (1987) 3 SCC 538=AIR 1987 SC 1782. Para 5 of the
\nsaid judgment reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“5.\n<\/p>\n
The ambit and scope of the said section came up for consideration
\nbefore this Court in Helper Girdharbhai v. Saiyed Mohmad Mirasaheb
\nKadri,<\/a> (1987) 3 SCC 538 : (AIR 1987 SC 1782) and after referring to a
\ncatena of authorities, Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. drew a distinction
\nbetween the appellate and the revisional jurisdictions of the Courts
\nand opined that the distinction was a real one. It was held that the
\nright to appeal carries with it the right of rehearing both on
\nquestions of law and fact, unless the statute conferring the right to
\nappeal itself limits the rehearing in some way, while the power to
\nhear a revision is generally given to a particular case is decided
\naccording to law. The Bench opined that although the High Court had
\nwider powers than that which could be exercised under Section 115 of
\nthe Code of Civil Procedure, yet its revisional jurisdiction could
\nonly be exercised for a limited purpose with a view to satisfying
\nitself that the decision under challenge before it is according to
\nlaw. The High Court cannot substitute its own findings on a question
\nof fact for the findings recorded by the Courts below on reappraisal
\nof evidence. Did the High Court exceed its jurisdiction ?”\n<\/p>\n
This
\nclearly suggests about the scope and ambit and it is further clearly
\nlaid down that unless the courts below have misdirected in applying
\nthe proper law or in construing the provision of law which goes to
\nthe root of the matter, the exercise of revisional jurisdiction would
\nnot be justified.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tIn the
\nfacts of the present case, a close scrutiny of the evidence as well
\nas the discussion made in the judgment of both the courts below
\nclearly suggests that they have considered the evidence for the
\npurpose of appreciating the issue regarding subletting or non-use by
\npetitioner No. 1, original defendant No. 1.  Admittedly, no written
\nstatement has been filed by defendant No. 1. As admitted by defendant
\nNo. 1 himself in his evidence, he had gone to the  native place after
\nclosure of the mill. Though it has been contended that he has been
\ndoing the business of cooking, the report of the court commissioner
\nclearly suggests that there are no such vessels.  On the other hand,
\nit has also been stated by defendant No. 1 in his evidence that he
\nwas working in a factory of which he cannot give the name of the
\nowner and there is no other evidence with him.  Admittedly, the wife
\nand the son reside at the native place and have agricultural
\noperations there.  The report of the court commissioner also refers
\nto repair work of the radio, TV sets which is done by defendant No. 2
\nwho has been admittedly using and occupying the premises.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tTherefore,
\nconsidering the provisions of sec. 13(i)(k) of the Rent Act which has
\nalso been discussed referring to the judgments of the High Court by
\nthe lower appellate court, it clearly establishes that the premises
\nwere not used by defendant No.1, the tenant himself, and the criteria
\nfor sec. 13(i)(k) was fulfilled.  There is a specific observation
\nthat defendant No. 1 has admitted that he has handed over the key of
\nthe said premises to defendant No. s in the year 1991 and from 1995
\nto 1999 he has not been using the said premises.  It also therefore
\nsuggests that physical possession and control of the premises has
\nbeen handed over by defendant No. 1-tenant to defendant No. 2.  This
\naspect is further discussed with reference that defendant No. 2 has
\nbeen doing the work of repairing TV sets in his house. Thus, as
\nrequired under law, it is necessary that there should be divesting of
\nexclusive possession by the tenant in favour of sub-tenant.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tIt is
\nwell-accepted that in order to prove tenancy  or sub-tenancy two
\ningredients are required to be established  :\n<\/p>\n
(i)exclusive
\nright of possession or interest in the premises,<\/p>\n
(ii) right
\nmust be in lieu of payment of some compensation or rent.\n<\/p>\n
When the
\nexclusive possession has been handed over for long  period as
\ndiscussed, it would amount to subletting and therefore the conclusion
\narrived at by both the courts below cannot be said to be erroneous.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tTherefore,
\nthe findings arrived at by both the courts below as discussed in the
\njudgments cannot be said to be erroneous which would call for any
\ninterference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.  Therefore, the
\npresent revision application deserves to be rejected and accordingly
\nstand rejected. Notice is discharged. No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
(Rajesh H.\n<\/p>\n
Shukla J.)<\/p>\n
 FURTHER
\nORDER<\/p>\n
\tAfter the
\njudgment was pronounced, learned counsel Mr. Gandhi submitted that
\nsome time may be granted to hand over vacant and peaceful possession
\nof the suit premises in question till December, 2011.  The learned
\nadvocate appearing on behalf of learned counsel Mr. Dave has no
\nobjection provided an undertaking to that effect is filed.
\nTherefore, time is granted, by consent, to hand over vacant and
\npeaceful possession of the suit premises in question till 31.12.2011.
\nHowever, the petitioner shall file an undertaking to the effect that
\nhe will hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises
\nwithout fail to the respondent landlord on or before 31.12.2011 and
\nthe time is therefore granted for vacating the premises on such
\nundertaking which shall be filed within a week in this court in these
\nproceedings.\n<\/p>\n
(Rajesh H.\n<\/p>\n
Shukla, J.)<\/p>\n
(hn)<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Shri vs Abdul on 24 August, 2011 Author: Rajesh H.Shukla, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CRA\/40\/2011 9\/ 9 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 40 of 2011 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA ========================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may […]<\/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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4626","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShri vs Abdul on 24 August, 2011 - 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\/shri-vs-abdul-on-24-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri vs Abdul on 24 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-vs-abdul-on-24-august-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-08-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-28T13:55:09+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-vs-abdul-on-24-august-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-vs-abdul-on-24-august-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri vs Abdul on 24 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-28T13:55:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-vs-abdul-on-24-august-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1939,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-vs-abdul-on-24-august-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-vs-abdul-on-24-august-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-vs-abdul-on-24-august-2011\",\"name\":\"Shri vs Abdul on 24 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-28T13:55:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-vs-abdul-on-24-august-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-vs-abdul-on-24-august-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-vs-abdul-on-24-august-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri vs Abdul on 24 August, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Shri vs Abdul on 24 August, 2011 - 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\/shri-vs-abdul-on-24-august-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri vs Abdul on 24 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-vs-abdul-on-24-august-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-28T13:55:09+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-vs-abdul-on-24-august-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-vs-abdul-on-24-august-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri vs Abdul on 24 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-28T13:55:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-vs-abdul-on-24-august-2011"},"wordCount":1939,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-vs-abdul-on-24-august-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-vs-abdul-on-24-august-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-vs-abdul-on-24-august-2011","name":"Shri vs Abdul on 24 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-28T13:55:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-vs-abdul-on-24-august-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-vs-abdul-on-24-august-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-vs-abdul-on-24-august-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri vs Abdul on 24 August, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/4626","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=4626"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4626\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4626"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4626"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4626"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}