{"id":62921,"date":"2009-04-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veena-jain-vs-rajan-prasad-anr-on-21-april-2009"},"modified":"2016-12-09T21:48:39","modified_gmt":"2016-12-09T16:18:39","slug":"veena-jain-vs-rajan-prasad-anr-on-21-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veena-jain-vs-rajan-prasad-anr-on-21-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"Veena Jain vs Rajan Prasad &amp; Anr. on 21 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Jharkhand High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Veena Jain vs Rajan Prasad &amp; Anr. on 21 April, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI\n\n               W.P. (C) No. 249 of 2009\n                         With\n               W.P. (C) No. 252 of 2009\n\nManoj Kumar Jain @\nManoj Jain &amp; another ... Petitioners (In W.P. (C) No. 249 of 2009)\nVeena Jain             ... Petitioner (In W.P. (C) No. 252 of 2009)\n                   Versus\nRajan Prasad &amp; others ... Respondents (In both cases)\n\n              .............\n<\/pre>\n<pre>CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.PATEL\n              ------------\nFor the Petitioner(s)      Mr. R.N Sahay &amp;\n                           Mr. Rajesh Lala (In both cases)\nFor the Respondents        Mr. Rajan Raj (In both cases)\n\n               -----------\n        x\/ Dated: 21st of April, 2009\n<\/pre>\n<p>1.      Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to join,<br \/>\nleft out original plaintiffs as respondents in both the petitions.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.      Permission, as prayed for, is granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.      Counsel for the respondents, waives notice on behalf of<br \/>\nnewly added respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.      Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking<br \/>\nto the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that:\n<\/p>\n<p>(i)     the present petitioners in both the aforesaid petitions are the<br \/>\noriginal defendants in Title (Eviction) Suit Nos. 59 as well as 61 of<br \/>\n2006;\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii)    the respondents are the original plaintiffs, who have<br \/>\ninstituted the Title (Eviction) Suit on the ground of personal<br \/>\nnecessity as the owner of the suit property was having two sons<br \/>\nand they want to carry out expansion of their business activities;\n<\/p>\n<p>(iii)   it also appears from the fact of the case that at later stage,<br \/>\nafter filing of the written statement, the present petitioners (original<br \/>\ndefendants) came to know about the purchase of the property by<br \/>\nthe original plaintiffs and, therefore, an application was preferred<br \/>\nunder Order-VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for<br \/>\namendment of a written statement.             This application is at<br \/>\nAnnexure-1 to the memo of the present petition. Looking to the<br \/>\npara-2 of the said application, it appears that allegations have been<br \/>\nlevelled by the petitioners (original defendants) that the plaintiffs<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                              2.<\/span><br \/>\nhave acquired a sufficiently large property and they are not going<br \/>\nto expand their business activities in the suit premises;\n<\/p>\n<p>(iv)     it appears that after the knowledge of purchase of property<br \/>\nby the original plaintiffs, the petitioners (original defendants) in<br \/>\nNovember, 2008, immediately preferred an application for<br \/>\namendment in written statement, but, at the same time the<br \/>\nevidence was already over in both the suits. Nonetheless, looking<br \/>\nto the application preferred by the present petitioners under Order-<br \/>\nVI, Rule-17 of C.P.C., the knowledge of the present petitioners start<br \/>\nfrom November, 2008 also looking to the contention as stated in<br \/>\npara-2 onwards in their application under Order-VI, Rule-17 of<br \/>\nC.P.C., the amendment affects the very root of the suits. The<br \/>\namendment will also facilitate the trial Court in arriving at the<br \/>\ncorrect decision of the dispute between the parties, therefore, also<br \/>\namendment require to be allowed in written statement in both the<br \/>\nsuits.\n<\/p>\n<p>(v)      it also appears from the facts of the case as per contentions<br \/>\nraised by the counsel for the respondents in the present petitions,<br \/>\nno doubt they have acquired property as stated in para-2, in an<br \/>\napplication preferred by the present petitioners under Order-VI,<br \/>\nRule-17 of C.P.C. but, it is not true that they are not going to<br \/>\nexpand their business activities on the suit property.      It is also<br \/>\nsubmitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the<br \/>\npetitioners have tried to delay the disposal of the suits and,<br \/>\ntherefore, a time bound schedule should be given to the trial Court<br \/>\nso that no unnecessary adjournment may be given.             Learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the petitioners have also assured this Court that they<br \/>\nshall not ask for unnecessary adjournment and will be abide by<br \/>\nwhatsoever time may be given to trial Court for disposal of suits<br \/>\nand they shall co-operate with the hearing and early disposal of<br \/>\nboth the suits.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.       In view of these submissions and looking to the nature of<br \/>\napplication under Order-6, Rule-17 preferred by present petitioners<br \/>\nand looking to the nature of controversy between the parties, I<br \/>\nhereby allow these applications, preferred by the present<br \/>\npetitioners in Title (Eviction) Suit Nos. 59 and 61 of 2006, preferred<br \/>\nunder Order-VI, Rule-17 of C.P.C. as the amendment affects the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                      3.<\/span><br \/>\n        very root of the case. No prejudice is going to cause to original<br \/>\n        plaintiffs. So far as, appointment of the commissioner under Order<br \/>\n        XXVI, Rule 9 of C.P.C. is concerned, as the counsel for respondents<br \/>\n        have fairly admitted purchase of another property which is<br \/>\n        stockyard type property as stated in para-2 in an application,<br \/>\n        preferred by the petitioners under Order-VI, Rule-17 and they are<br \/>\n        not loading cars, coming from outside and the said property is<br \/>\n        situated on the highway and outside the city of Dhanbad, learned<br \/>\n        counsel for the petitioners is not pressing these applications,<br \/>\n        preferred under Order-XXXVI, Rule-9 of C.P.C. at this stage.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.     I hereby allow the applications under Order-VI, Rule-17 in<br \/>\n        both the suits and I hereby direct trial Court to decide the Title<br \/>\n        (Eviction) Suit Nos. 59 as well as 61 of 2006, as expeditiously as<br \/>\n        possible and practicable, but not later than 60 days from the receipt<br \/>\n        of copy of the order of this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.     It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioners (original<br \/>\n        defendants) that they want to examine only one witness for proof<br \/>\n        of the usage of the newly purchase property; otherwise they are not<br \/>\n        going to examine any other witness.        Learned counsel for the<br \/>\n        respondents (original plaintiffs) has also submitted that they do not<br \/>\n        want to examine any witness nonetheless, I hereby allow both the<br \/>\n        parties to adduce evidence. Thus, applications preferred by the<br \/>\n        original defendants under Order-6, Rule-17 of C.P.C. in both the<br \/>\n        suits are allowed. So far as applications under Order-XXVI, Rule 9<br \/>\n        of C.P.C. is concerned; the petitioners (original defendants) are not<br \/>\n        pressing these applications at this stage. Thus, the orders passed<br \/>\n        by the trial Court to the aforesaid extent is quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.     Both the petitions are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent,<br \/>\n        with no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                               (D.N. Patel, J.)<\/p>\n<p>Ajay\/\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Jharkhand High Court Veena Jain vs Rajan Prasad &amp; Anr. on 21 April, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 249 of 2009 With W.P. (C) No. 252 of 2009 Manoj Kumar Jain @ Manoj Jain &amp; another &#8230; Petitioners (In W.P. (C) No. 249 of 2009) Veena Jain &#8230; [&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":[8,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-62921","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jharkhand-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Veena Jain vs Rajan Prasad &amp; Anr. on 21 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veena-jain-vs-rajan-prasad-anr-on-21-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Veena Jain vs Rajan Prasad &amp; Anr. on 21 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veena-jain-vs-rajan-prasad-anr-on-21-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-04-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-09T16:18:39+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veena-jain-vs-rajan-prasad-anr-on-21-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veena-jain-vs-rajan-prasad-anr-on-21-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Veena Jain vs Rajan Prasad &amp; Anr. on 21 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-09T16:18:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veena-jain-vs-rajan-prasad-anr-on-21-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":920,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jharkhand High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veena-jain-vs-rajan-prasad-anr-on-21-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veena-jain-vs-rajan-prasad-anr-on-21-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veena-jain-vs-rajan-prasad-anr-on-21-april-2009\",\"name\":\"Veena Jain vs Rajan Prasad &amp; Anr. on 21 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-09T16:18:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veena-jain-vs-rajan-prasad-anr-on-21-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veena-jain-vs-rajan-prasad-anr-on-21-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veena-jain-vs-rajan-prasad-anr-on-21-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Veena Jain vs Rajan Prasad &amp; Anr. on 21 April, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/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":"Veena Jain vs Rajan Prasad &amp; Anr. on 21 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veena-jain-vs-rajan-prasad-anr-on-21-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Veena Jain vs Rajan Prasad &amp; Anr. on 21 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veena-jain-vs-rajan-prasad-anr-on-21-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-09T16:18:39+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veena-jain-vs-rajan-prasad-anr-on-21-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veena-jain-vs-rajan-prasad-anr-on-21-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Veena Jain vs Rajan Prasad &amp; Anr. on 21 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-09T16:18:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veena-jain-vs-rajan-prasad-anr-on-21-april-2009"},"wordCount":920,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jharkhand High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veena-jain-vs-rajan-prasad-anr-on-21-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veena-jain-vs-rajan-prasad-anr-on-21-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veena-jain-vs-rajan-prasad-anr-on-21-april-2009","name":"Veena Jain vs Rajan Prasad &amp; Anr. on 21 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-09T16:18:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veena-jain-vs-rajan-prasad-anr-on-21-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veena-jain-vs-rajan-prasad-anr-on-21-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veena-jain-vs-rajan-prasad-anr-on-21-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Veena Jain vs Rajan Prasad &amp; Anr. on 21 April, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/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\/62921","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=62921"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62921\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=62921"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=62921"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=62921"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}