{"id":5074,"date":"2010-01-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhir-vs-life-on-18-january-2010"},"modified":"2018-06-25T10:36:27","modified_gmt":"2018-06-25T05:06:27","slug":"sudhir-vs-life-on-18-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhir-vs-life-on-18-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Sudhir vs Life on 18 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Sudhir vs Life on 18 January, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Abhilasha Kumari,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/7709\/2009\t 7\/ 10\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 7709 of 2009\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHON'BLE\nSMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI\n \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 be\n\t\t\treferred 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 \n\nSUDHIR\nVADILAL SHAH &amp; 1 - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nLIFE\nINSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nMANISH M KAUSHIK for\nPetitioner(s) : 1 - 2. \nNOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1, \nMR\nBY MANKAD for Respondent(s) :\n1, \n=========================================================\n\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\nHON'BLE\n\t\t\tSMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 18\/01\/2010 \n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>\tRule.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tMr.B.Y.Mankad, learned advocate,<br \/>\n\twaives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent. On the<br \/>\n\tfacts and in the circumstances<br \/>\n\tof the case, and with the consent of the learned counsel for the<br \/>\n\trespective parties, the petition is being heard and finally decided<br \/>\n\ttoday.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThis<br \/>\n\tpetition has been preferred under the provisions of Articles 226 and<br \/>\n\t227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash and set<br \/>\n\taside order dated 08.07.2009, passed by the Executing Court in<br \/>\n\tSpecial Execution Petition No.116 of 2006, whereby a warrant for<br \/>\n\tattachment and sale of the property of the petitioners, under the<br \/>\n\tprovisions of Order 21, Rule 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908<br \/>\n\t( the Code ) has been issued.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\n\tbrief facts of the case are that the petitioner No.1 was serving in<br \/>\n\tthe Accounts Department of the respondent<br \/>\n\t  Corporation since 1983 and, during the tenure of his services,<br \/>\n\the requested the respondent-Corporation for a housing loan, under<br \/>\n\tthe Individual Employee Housing (Flat) Scheme. A sum of<br \/>\n\tRs.1,27,000\/- was sanctioned and disbursed to the petitioner No.1<br \/>\n\tfor purchasing a flat, with interest @ 5.25% per annum.<br \/>\n\tSubsequently, the services of the petitioner No.1 came to be<br \/>\n\tterminated in the year 1998 as, according to the<br \/>\n\trespondent-Corporation, he along with others, was involved in a<br \/>\n\ttheft that took place in the office premises where he was serving.<br \/>\n\tAfter termination of his services, the petitioner No.1 could not<br \/>\n\trepay the loan amount. The respondent-Corporation filed Special<br \/>\n\tCivil Suit No.194 of 1999 for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,34,211=72<br \/>\n\tps. with interest @ 15.25% per annum. The petitioner No.2 is the<br \/>\n\twife of petitioner No.1. According to the petitioners, though they<br \/>\n\thad instructed their advocate to defend the suit, no written<br \/>\n\tstatement was filed and nor was the suit contested. Ultimately, the<br \/>\n\tsuit of the respondent was decreed, exparte, on 24.06.2005. An<br \/>\n\tapplication for setting aside the exparte decree dated 24.06.2005<br \/>\n\twas filed, which is pending. In the meanwhile, the<br \/>\n\trespondent-Corporation started execution proceedings, being Special<br \/>\n\tExecution Petition No.116 of 2006. An application<br \/>\n\tfor stay of the execution proceedings, filed by the petitioners, is<br \/>\n\tstill pending. The Executing Court issued notice under the<br \/>\n\tprovisions of Order 21, Rule 22 of the Code on 03.11.2006. The<br \/>\n\tpetitioners filed objections as per provisions of Rule 23 on<br \/>\n\t03.10.2007. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 08.07.2009 came to<br \/>\n\tbe passed, leading to the filing of the present petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tMr.Manish<br \/>\n\tM.Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that<br \/>\n\tthe Executing Court has passed the impugned order without<br \/>\n\tconsidering or deciding the objections filed by the petitioners<br \/>\n\tafter issuance of notice, as provided under Rule 23 of Order 21. It<br \/>\n\tis further submitted that the Executing Court, without considering<br \/>\n\tthe said objections, has straightaway passed the impugned order<br \/>\n\tunder the provisions of Rule 30 of Order 21 of the Code, thereby<br \/>\n\tcausing prejudice to the petitioners, who have been deprived of<br \/>\n\tconsideration\/ adjudication of the objections filed by them.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tOn<br \/>\n\tthe other hand, Mr.B.Y.Mankad, learned counsel<br \/>\n\tfor the respondent-Corporation, has submitted that in fact, the<br \/>\n\tobjections of the petitioners have been decided by the impugned<br \/>\n\torder and as there is no stay against execution proceedings, the<br \/>\n\timpugned order has been rightly passed by the Executing Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tOn<br \/>\n\tthe Court putting a query to the learned counsel for the<br \/>\n\trespondent-Corporation as to whether the Court has passed an order<br \/>\n\tafter considering the objections of the petitioners dated<br \/>\n\t03.10.2007, the learned counsel for the respondent could not render<br \/>\n\tany satisfactory answer, except that the impugned order amounts to<br \/>\n\tconsideration of the objections. It is prayed that the petition be<br \/>\n\tdismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tI<br \/>\n\thave heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, perused<br \/>\n\tthe averments made in the petition, contents of the impugned order<br \/>\n\tand other documents on record.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThere<br \/>\n\tis no dispute regarding the fact that by order dated 03.11.2006, the<br \/>\n\tCourt issued Notice to the<br \/>\n\tpetitioners under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 22 of the Code.<br \/>\n\tThe procedure to be followed by the Court after issuance of Notice<br \/>\n\tis clearly laid down in Rule 23 of Order 21. The said Rule reads as<br \/>\n\tunder:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t 23.\tProcedure<br \/>\n\tafter issue of notice   (1) Where the person to whom notice is<br \/>\n\tissued under rule 22 does not appear or does not show cause to the<br \/>\n\tsatisfaction of the Court why the decree should not be executed, the<br \/>\n\tCourt shall order the decree to be executed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(2)\tWhere<br \/>\n\tsuch person offers any objection of the decree,  the<br \/>\n\tCourt shall consider such objection and make such order as it thinks<br \/>\n\tfit.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(emphasis<br \/>\n\tsupplied)<\/p>\n<p>\tIt<br \/>\n\tis clear from a reading of sub-rule 2 of Rule 23 that in the event<br \/>\n\tthat a person offers any objection to the execution of the decree,<br \/>\n\tthe Court shall consider such objection and after doing so, make<br \/>\n\tsuch order as it thinks fit. The word `shall&#8217;<br \/>\n\thas been used in the said rule, which means that consideration of<br \/>\n\tthe objection  filed by a person to the execution of the decree, is<br \/>\n\tmandatory.  After duly considering the objection, the Court may pass<br \/>\n\tan appropriate order as it<br \/>\n\tdeems fit.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt<br \/>\n\tis an admitted position that the petitioners have filed an<br \/>\n\tobjection, as stipulated in sub-rule 2 of Rule 23 of the Code which<br \/>\n\tis dated 03.10.2007. It is not denied by the learned counsel for the<br \/>\n\trespondent-Corporation that no order has been passed upon the said<br \/>\n\tobjection. This is precisely the case of the petitioners. It is,<br \/>\n\ttherefore, clear that the Court has not considered the objection at<br \/>\n\tall. The provisions of Rule 23 make the consideration of the<br \/>\n\tobjection necessary and after such consideration, the Court can make<br \/>\n\tsuch order, as it thinks fit. The above-quoted provision leaves no<br \/>\n\tmanner of doubt that the order of the Court, as contemplated in<br \/>\n\tsub-rule 2 of Rule 23 of the Code, is an order to be passed after<br \/>\n\tconsidering the objections. By no stretch of imagination can it be<br \/>\n\tconstrued to mean that the impugned order passed under the<br \/>\n\tprovisions of Rule 30 of Order 21 of the Code is an order passed<br \/>\n\tafter considering the objections, as contended by the learned<br \/>\n\tcounsel for the respondent-Corporation.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\n\tprocedure to be followed at different stages in execution<br \/>\n\tproceedings has been meticulously laid down in the Code and, at<br \/>\n\tevery stage, there are inbuilt checks and balances which have been<br \/>\n\tprovided so that no party is prejudiced. Further, the provisions of<br \/>\n\tRule 26 of Order 21 relate to stay of execution and provide that the<br \/>\n\tCourt to which a decree has been sent for execution shall, upon<br \/>\n\tsufficient cause being shown, stay the execution of such decree for<br \/>\n\ta reasonable time, to enable the judgment-debtor to  apply to the<br \/>\n\tCourt by which the decree was passed or to any Court having<br \/>\n\tappellate jurisdiction in respect of the decree. Admittedly, this<br \/>\n\tstage has also not been followed, as the application for grant of<br \/>\n\tstay filed by the petitioners is still pending. After issuance of<br \/>\n\tnotice under Order 21, Rule 22, the Executing Court has straightaway<br \/>\n\tpassed the order under the provisions of Rule 30, whereby a warrant<br \/>\n\tfor attachment and sale of the property of the petitioners has been<br \/>\n\tissued.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn<br \/>\n\tthe considered view of this Court, by passing<br \/>\n\tthe impugned order, the Court has deprived the petitioners of the<br \/>\n\tstage of consideration of his objection as well as decision on the<br \/>\n\tapplication for stay of the execution proceedings. Undoubtedly,<br \/>\n\tprejudice will be caused to the petitioners as two stages of<br \/>\n\tconsideration of objection under Order 21 Rule 23 and decision of<br \/>\n\tthe application for stay under Order 21 Rule 26 have been totally<br \/>\n\tignored by the Executing Court before passing the impugned order.<br \/>\n\tThe impugned order does not disclose that the objection of the<br \/>\n\tpetitioners has been taken into consideration and, in any case, the<br \/>\n\tsaid objection cannot be considered at the stage of passing of the<br \/>\n\torder under Rule 30, when it has been clearly provided in the Code<br \/>\n\tthat the objection has to be considered and an order made thereupon,<br \/>\n\tas per provisions of Rule 23(2) of Order 21.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFor<br \/>\n\tthe abovestated reasons, as the impugned order has  not  been<br \/>\n\tpassed  in accordance  with the provisions of law, it cannot  be<br \/>\n\tsustained.  The passing of the impugned order, which is erroneous,<br \/>\n\thas resulted in injustice to the petitioners. Accordingly, order<br \/>\n\tdated 08.07.2009 is quashed and set aside. The Executing Court is<br \/>\n\tdirected to consider the objection filed by the petitioners dated<br \/>\n\t03.10.2007, as also the application for grant of stay, and decide<br \/>\n\tthe same, as expeditiously as possible and without avoidable delay.<br \/>\n\tThereafter, the Trial Court may pass a fresh order, in accordance<br \/>\n\twith law, after hearing the learned counsel for the respective<br \/>\n\tparties.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt<br \/>\n\tis made clear that the Court has not considered the merits of the<br \/>\n\tcase and has only decided the petition on the limited grounds as<br \/>\n\tdiscussed hereinabove.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\n\tpetition is partly-allowed, as above. Rule is made absolute to the<br \/>\n\tabove extent. There shall be no orders as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t(Smt.Abhilasha<br \/>\nKumari, J.)               <\/p>\n<p>(sunil)<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Sudhir vs Life on 18 January, 2010 Author: Abhilasha Kumari,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/7709\/2009 7\/ 10 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7709 of 2009 For Approval and Signature: HON&#8217;BLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers [&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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5074","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Sudhir vs Life on 18 January, 2010 - 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\/sudhir-vs-life-on-18-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sudhir vs Life on 18 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhir-vs-life-on-18-january-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-01-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-25T05:06:27+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudhir-vs-life-on-18-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudhir-vs-life-on-18-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sudhir vs Life on 18 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-25T05:06:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudhir-vs-life-on-18-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1476,\"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\\\/sudhir-vs-life-on-18-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudhir-vs-life-on-18-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudhir-vs-life-on-18-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Sudhir vs Life on 18 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-25T05:06:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudhir-vs-life-on-18-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudhir-vs-life-on-18-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudhir-vs-life-on-18-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sudhir vs Life on 18 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Sudhir vs Life on 18 January, 2010 - 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\/sudhir-vs-life-on-18-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sudhir vs Life on 18 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhir-vs-life-on-18-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-25T05:06:27+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhir-vs-life-on-18-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhir-vs-life-on-18-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sudhir vs Life on 18 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-25T05:06:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhir-vs-life-on-18-january-2010"},"wordCount":1476,"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\/sudhir-vs-life-on-18-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhir-vs-life-on-18-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhir-vs-life-on-18-january-2010","name":"Sudhir vs Life on 18 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-25T05:06:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhir-vs-life-on-18-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhir-vs-life-on-18-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhir-vs-life-on-18-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sudhir vs Life on 18 January, 2010"}]},{"@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\/5074","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=5074"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5074\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5074"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5074"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5074"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}