{"id":49798,"date":"2009-02-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vadiraj-naggappa-vernekar-d-th-vs-sharad-chand-prabhakar-gogate-on-24-february-2009"},"modified":"2015-12-02T11:44:31","modified_gmt":"2015-12-02T06:14:31","slug":"vadiraj-naggappa-vernekar-d-th-vs-sharad-chand-prabhakar-gogate-on-24-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vadiraj-naggappa-vernekar-d-th-vs-sharad-chand-prabhakar-gogate-on-24-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (D) Th. &#8230; vs Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate on 24 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (D) Th. &#8230; vs Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate on 24 February, 2009<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Altamas Kabir, Cyriac Joseph<\/div>\n<pre>            VADIRAJ NAGGAPPA VERNEKAR (D) THROUGH LRS.\n                         V.\n      SHARAD CHAND PRABHAKAR GOGATE\n           Civil Appeal No. 1172 of 2009\n                  FEBRUARY 24, 2009\n        [ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]\n\n     The Judgement of the Court was delivered by\n     ALTAMAS KABIR, J.\n<\/pre>\n<p>     1. Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>     2. The short question for decision in this appeal is whether a witness having<br \/>\nbeen examined by way of affidavit evidence can be recalled for giving further<br \/>\nevidence with regard to facts not mentioned in the affidavit.\n<\/p>\n<p>       3. The aforesaid question arises in respect of a suit filed by one Vadiraj<br \/>\nNaggappa Vernekar and Smt. Mainabai Ranade, being Suit No. S.925 of 1990,<br \/>\nbefore the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, seeking a declaration<br \/>\nthat the Letters of Administration obtained by one Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate<br \/>\n      th<br \/>\non 5 November, 1998, in respect of the estate of Dr. Sudha Gogate, was not<br \/>\nbinding on the plaintiffs or any of them and did not affect their right, title and interest<br \/>\nin the suit property, being Flat no.402, situated in Amogh Vikram Cooperative<br \/>\nHousing Society Ltd., Murari Ghag Marg, Prabhadevi, Bombay 400025. Vadiraj<br \/>\nNaggappa Vernekar died during the pendency of the suit and his legal<br \/>\nrepresentatives were brought on record in his place. The appellant No.1, being the<br \/>\nwife of the deceased, was made plaintiff no.1A and his sons and daughters were<br \/>\nmade plaintiff Nos.B, C and D respectively.\n<\/p>\n<p>      4. One Sadanand Sheshgiri Shet, who was alleged to be a witness to all the<br \/>\ntransactions relating to the said flat, was appointed as Constituted Attorney by the<br \/>\nappellant and the other heirs of deceased Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar and as<br \/>\nrequired under Order 17 Rule 4 CPC, his evidence by way of an affidavit was filed<br \/>\nbefore the learned Single Judge. While the evidence was still being recorded in the<br \/>\nsuit, the appellant and the other plaintiffs moved Notice of Motion No.463 of 2006<br \/>\n                                           th<br \/>\nbefore the learned Single Judge on 13 February, 2006, urging that certain facts<br \/>\nwhich were necessary for proper adjudication of the suit had inadvertently been left<br \/>\nout in the affidavit affirmed by Sadanand Shet and that it was, therefore, necessary<br \/>\nto recall him for further examination-in-chief under the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17<br \/>\n                           th<br \/>\nCPC. By order dated 7 July, 2006, the learned Single Judge dismissed the said<br \/>\nMotion upon holding that the witness could not be recalled to fill up the lacuna in his<br \/>\nexamination-in-chief on affidavit. Appeal No.853 of 2006 filed by the appellant herein<br \/>\n                                                                           st<br \/>\nwas dismissed in limine by the Division Bench of the High Court on 1 December,<br \/>\n2006, confirming the order of the learned Single Judge. The present appeal, by<br \/>\n                                                                         st<br \/>\nleave, has been filed against the order of the Appeal Court dated 1 December,<br \/>\n2006.\n<\/p>\n<p>     5. Learned Senior Advocate, Mr. P.S. Narasimha, who appeared for the<br \/>\nappellant, briefly submitted that the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC were very<br \/>\nwide and could be made at any stage to enable the Court to do complete justice<br \/>\nbetween the parties. For the sake of reference, the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17<br \/>\nCPC are reproduced hereinbelow:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;17. Court may recall and examine witness. &#8211;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     The Court may, at any stage of suit, recall any witness who has been examined<br \/>\n     and may (subject to the law of evidence for the time being in force), put such<br \/>\n     questions to him as the Court thinks fit.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>      6. Mr. Narasimha also submitted that it has been held by way of judicial<br \/>\npronouncements that the Court may recall and examine a witness not only suo motu<br \/>\nbut also on an application that may be made by the parties to the suit. Learned<br \/>\ncounsel also submitted that the affidavit of evidence of Sadanand Shet had been<br \/>\nprepared by the learned advocate, who had inadvertently left out certain vital facts<br \/>\nwhich were necessary for a complete and proper adjudication of the suit. He urged<br \/>\nthat on account of the omission of the learned counsel, the plaintiffs\/appellants<br \/>\nherein should not be made to suffer since the evidence of Sadanand Shet went to<br \/>\nthe very root of the issues to be decided in the suit. Mr. Narasimha also submitted<br \/>\nthat although the cross-examination of the witness on affidavit had been completed,<br \/>\nthe defendants could always be permitted to re-examine the witness on the fresh<br \/>\nevidence that would be adduced. Mr. Narasimha also submitted that while ensuring<br \/>\nthat proper justice was done between the parties, allowing the recall of Sadanand<br \/>\nShet would not in any way prejudice the defendants.\n<\/p>\n<p>      7. In support of his aforesaid submissions, Mr. Narasimha firstly referred to the<br \/>\ndecision of this Court in Smt. M.N. Amonkar &amp; Ors. Vs. Dr. S.A. Johari (1984 (2)<br \/>\nSCC 354), wherein this Court, while considering the scope of Article 227 in dealing<br \/>\nwith an application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC, came to a finding that unless the<br \/>\nreasons given by the Trial Court in rejecting an application under Order 18 Rule 17<br \/>\nCPC can be said to be moonshine, flimsy or irrational, the rejection of the application<br \/>\ncannot be dubbed as suggestive of non-judicial approach or bias or partiality on the<br \/>\npart of the Trial Court merely because in the exercise of its discretion another Court<br \/>\nmight have taken a different view and allowed the application. Mr. Narasimha<br \/>\nsubmitted that, in other words, an application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC should<br \/>\nnot be rejected as a matter of course, unless it was shown that such an application<br \/>\nwas moonshine, flimsy or irrational.\n<\/p>\n<p>      8. Mr. Narasimha then referred to a Single Bench decision of the Madras High<br \/>\nCourt in S.S.S. Durai Pandian Vs. Samuthira Pandian (AIR 1998 Mas 323) in which<br \/>\nit had been held that under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC, the Court could not only recall a<br \/>\nwitness on its own but also on an application made by the defendants. Similar views<br \/>\nwere expressed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Satinder Singh<br \/>\nVs. Sukhdev (AIR 1999 HP 72) and by the Punjab &amp; Haryana High Court in the case<br \/>\nof Om Prakash Vs. Sarupa &amp; Ors. (AIR 1981 P&amp;H 157).\n<\/p>\n<p>     9. In this regard, Mr. Narasimha also referred to another Single Bench decision<br \/>\nof the Rajasthan High Court in Jodhpur Gums &amp; Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab<br \/>\nNational Bank &amp; Ors. (AIR 1999 Raj. 38), wherein while expressing the same views<br \/>\nas expressed in the above-mentioned matters, it was also observed that by allowing<br \/>\nsuch an application for recall of a witness, no prejudice could be caused to the<br \/>\ndefendants as, apart from being compensated by costs, they would also have the<br \/>\nopportunity to cross-examine the witness.\n<\/p>\n<p>     10. On the basis of the above, Mr. Narasimha submitted that the orders of the<br \/>\nlearned Single Judge, as also the Division Bench, were passed on an erroneous<br \/>\nunderstanding of the law and were liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>      11. Strongly opposing the submissions made on behalf of the appellants, Mr.<br \/>\nShivaji M. Jadhav, learned Advocate, submitted that as has been held by the learned<br \/>\nSingle Judge and subsequently confirmed by the Division Bench, the application<br \/>\nmade under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC was nothing but an attempt to fill up the lacunae<br \/>\nin the evidence of Sadanand Shet after his examination had been completed. He<br \/>\nurged that it is settled law that an application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC could not<br \/>\nbe allowed when the deponent, while preparing his affidavit evidence, had full<br \/>\nknowledge of all the facts which were now being proposed to be included in his<br \/>\nevidence, and that the same had been held to be impermissible. Mr. Jadhav also<br \/>\ncontended that the power under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC, though giving wide power to<br \/>\nthe Court to recall any witness at any stage of a suit in order to examine him\/her,<br \/>\nwas also meant to be exercised sparingly so that after the examination and cross-<br \/>\nexamination of a witness, the said witness was not utilized for filling up the gaps in<br \/>\nthe evidence of the witness which had been elicited during cross-examination.\n<\/p>\n<p>      12. Mr. Jadhav submitted that both the learned Single Judge as well as the<br \/>\nDivision Bench of the High Court had rightly dismissed the appellants&#8217; application<br \/>\nunder Order 18 Rule 17 CPC and the orders did not merit any interference.\n<\/p>\n<p>      13. In support of his submissions, Mr. Jadhav referred to a Single Bench<br \/>\ndecision of the Allahabad High Court in Sunder Theaters Vs. Allahabad Bank, Jhansi<br \/>\n(AIR 1999 All. 14), where a similar question arose and the Court observed that the<br \/>\npower of the Court under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is discretionary and has to be<br \/>\nexercised with the greatest care and only in exceptional circumstances. It was further<br \/>\nobserved that under the garb of this rule, the Court ought not to recall a witness at<br \/>\nthe instance of a party in order to fill up a lacuna in the evidence already led.\n<\/p>\n<p>     14. Mr. Jadhav, therefore, submitted that the application filed by the appellants<br \/>\nunder Order 18 Rule 17 CPC had been rightly rejected by the Courts below following<br \/>\nthe well-established principles as to invocation of power by a Court under Order 18<br \/>\nRule 17 CPC.\n<\/p>\n<p>     15. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, we are unable to<br \/>\nagree with Mr. Narasimha that both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the<br \/>\nHigh Court had erred in rejecting the appellants&#8217; application under Order 18 Rule 17<br \/>\nCPC since, according to Mr. Narasimha, no prejudice would be caused to the<br \/>\nrespondent as he would be given a chance of cross-examination after re-<br \/>\nexamination-in-chief by the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n<p>      16. In our view, though the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC have been<br \/>\ninterpreted to include applications to be filed by the parties for recall of witnesses,<br \/>\nthe main purpose of the said rule is to enable the Court, while trying a suit, to clarify<br \/>\nany doubts which it may have with regard to the evidence led by the parties. The<br \/>\nsaid provisions are not intended to be used to fill up omissions in the evidence of a<br \/>\nwitness who has already been examined. As indicated by the learned Single Judge,<br \/>\nthe evidence now being sought to be introduced by recalling the witness in question,<br \/>\nwas available at the time when the affidavit of evidence of the witness was prepared<br \/>\nand affirmed. It is not as if certain new facts have been discovered subsequently<br \/>\nwhich were not within the knowledge of the applicant when the affidavit evidence<br \/>\nwas prepared. In the instant case, Sadanand Shet was shown to have been actively<br \/>\ninvolved in the acquisition of the flat in question and, therefore, had knowledge of all<br \/>\nthe transactions involving such acquisition. It is obvious that only after cross-<br \/>\nexamination of the witness that certain lapses in his evidence came to be noticed<br \/>\nwhich impelled the appellant to file the application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC.<br \/>\nSuch a course of action which arises out of the fact situation in this case, does not<br \/>\nmake out a case for recall of a witness after his examination has been completed.<br \/>\nThe power under the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is to be sparingly<br \/>\nexercised and in appropriate cases and not as a general rule merely on the ground<br \/>\nthat his recall and re-examination would not cause any prejudice to the parties. That<br \/>\nis not the scheme or intention of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC.\n<\/p>\n<p>     17. It is now well settled that the power to recall any witness under Order 18<br \/>\nRule 17 CPC can be exercised by the Court either on its own motion or on an<br \/>\napplication filed by any of the parties to the suit, but as indicated hereinabove, such<br \/>\npower is to be invoked not to fill up the lacunae in the evidence of the witness which<br \/>\nhas already been recorded but to clear any ambiguity that may have arisen during<br \/>\nthe course of his examination. Of course, if the evidence on re-examination of a<br \/>\nwitness has a bearing on the ultimate decision of the suit, it is always within the<br \/>\ndiscretion of the Trial Court to permit recall of such a witness for re-examination-in-<br \/>\nchief with permission to the defendants to cross-examine the witness thereafter.<br \/>\nThere is nothing to indicate that such is the situation in the present case. Some of<br \/>\nthe principles akin to Order 47 CPC may be applied when a party makes an<br \/>\napplication under the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC, but it is ultimately within<br \/>\nthe Court&#8217;s discretion, if it deems fit, to allow such an application. In the present<br \/>\nappeal, no such case has been made out.\n<\/p>\n<p>     18. We, accordingly, have no hesitation in dismissing the appeal, but<br \/>\nwithout any order as to costs. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (D) Th. &#8230; vs Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate on 24 February, 2009 Bench: Altamas Kabir, Cyriac Joseph VADIRAJ NAGGAPPA VERNEKAR (D) THROUGH LRS. V. SHARAD CHAND PRABHAKAR GOGATE Civil Appeal No. 1172 of 2009 FEBRUARY 24, 2009 [ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] The Judgement of the Court [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-49798","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (D) Th. ... vs Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate on 24 February, 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\/vadiraj-naggappa-vernekar-d-th-vs-sharad-chand-prabhakar-gogate-on-24-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (D) Th. ... vs Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate on 24 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vadiraj-naggappa-vernekar-d-th-vs-sharad-chand-prabhakar-gogate-on-24-february-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=\"2009-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-02T06:14:31+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=\"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\\\/vadiraj-naggappa-vernekar-d-th-vs-sharad-chand-prabhakar-gogate-on-24-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vadiraj-naggappa-vernekar-d-th-vs-sharad-chand-prabhakar-gogate-on-24-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (D) Th. &#8230; vs Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate on 24 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-02T06:14:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vadiraj-naggappa-vernekar-d-th-vs-sharad-chand-prabhakar-gogate-on-24-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2049,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vadiraj-naggappa-vernekar-d-th-vs-sharad-chand-prabhakar-gogate-on-24-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vadiraj-naggappa-vernekar-d-th-vs-sharad-chand-prabhakar-gogate-on-24-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vadiraj-naggappa-vernekar-d-th-vs-sharad-chand-prabhakar-gogate-on-24-february-2009\",\"name\":\"Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (D) Th. ... vs Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate on 24 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-02T06:14:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vadiraj-naggappa-vernekar-d-th-vs-sharad-chand-prabhakar-gogate-on-24-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vadiraj-naggappa-vernekar-d-th-vs-sharad-chand-prabhakar-gogate-on-24-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vadiraj-naggappa-vernekar-d-th-vs-sharad-chand-prabhakar-gogate-on-24-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (D) Th. &#8230; vs Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate on 24 February, 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":"Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (D) Th. ... vs Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate on 24 February, 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\/vadiraj-naggappa-vernekar-d-th-vs-sharad-chand-prabhakar-gogate-on-24-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (D) Th. ... vs Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate on 24 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vadiraj-naggappa-vernekar-d-th-vs-sharad-chand-prabhakar-gogate-on-24-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-02T06:14:31+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vadiraj-naggappa-vernekar-d-th-vs-sharad-chand-prabhakar-gogate-on-24-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vadiraj-naggappa-vernekar-d-th-vs-sharad-chand-prabhakar-gogate-on-24-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (D) Th. &#8230; vs Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate on 24 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-02T06:14:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vadiraj-naggappa-vernekar-d-th-vs-sharad-chand-prabhakar-gogate-on-24-february-2009"},"wordCount":2049,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vadiraj-naggappa-vernekar-d-th-vs-sharad-chand-prabhakar-gogate-on-24-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vadiraj-naggappa-vernekar-d-th-vs-sharad-chand-prabhakar-gogate-on-24-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vadiraj-naggappa-vernekar-d-th-vs-sharad-chand-prabhakar-gogate-on-24-february-2009","name":"Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (D) Th. ... vs Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate on 24 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-02T06:14:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vadiraj-naggappa-vernekar-d-th-vs-sharad-chand-prabhakar-gogate-on-24-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vadiraj-naggappa-vernekar-d-th-vs-sharad-chand-prabhakar-gogate-on-24-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vadiraj-naggappa-vernekar-d-th-vs-sharad-chand-prabhakar-gogate-on-24-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (D) Th. &#8230; vs Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate on 24 February, 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\/49798","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=49798"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49798\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=49798"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=49798"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=49798"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}