{"id":64108,"date":"2008-11-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/major-s-s-rana-vs-ajit-singh-on-19-november-2008"},"modified":"2018-07-11T16:46:32","modified_gmt":"2018-07-11T11:16:32","slug":"major-s-s-rana-vs-ajit-singh-on-19-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/major-s-s-rana-vs-ajit-singh-on-19-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"Major S.S.Rana vs Ajit Singh on 19 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Major S.S.Rana vs Ajit Singh on 19 November, 2008<\/div>\n
Civil Revision No. 5016 of 2005                                     1\n\n\n\n\n      In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.\n\n\n\n                      Civil Revision No. 5016 of 2005\n\n                       Date of Decision: 19.11.2008\n\n\n\nMajor S.S.Rana\n                                                            ...Petitioner\n                                   Versus\nAjit Singh\n                                                         ... Respondent\n\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.\n\n\nPresent: Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Senior Advocate\n         with Mr. Sham Lal Bhalla, Advocate\n         for the petitioner.\n\n             Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate\n             with Mr. G.S.Ghuman, Advocate\n             for the respondent.\n\nKanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)\n<\/pre>\n
             The present revision petition has been filed against the<\/p>\n
impugned order dated 6.7.1995 whereby the order of ex parte dated<\/p>\n
2.5.1994 was set aside. The revision petition was filed in this Court in<\/p>\n
the year 2005.\n<\/p>\n
             Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate, appearing along with<\/p>\n
Mr. V. Taneja, Advocate, on behalf of the respondent, has stated that<\/p>\n
during the pendency of present revision petition, entire evidence of<\/p>\n
landlord and the tenant was recorded. Thereafter, learned Rent<\/p>\n
Controller had pronounced the judgment on merits of the case.        An
\n Civil Revision No. 5016 of 2005                                             2<\/span><\/p>\n
appeal was filed against the same by the landlord. The appeal has been<\/p>\n
decided    and the matter was again remitted back              to learned Rent<\/p>\n
Controller. In this context, Mr. Kanwaljit Singh submitted that before<\/p>\n
learned Rent Controller, entire evidence has been led by the parties.<\/p>\n
The present revision petition has virtually lost its stings.<\/p>\n
           Mr. Mahajan insists, this Court must go into the root of the<\/p>\n
matter and return the findings.         He states, even in the changed<\/p>\n
circumstances, this Court must adjudicate. He states setting aside of<\/p>\n
the ex-parte order, later recording of evidence, pronouncement of<\/p>\n
judgment, filing of appeal, Appellate Authority remanding the matter to<\/p>\n
the Rent Controller may have changed the circumstances but could not<\/p>\n
decide the legal issue. Therefore, in this context, I proceed to decide<\/p>\n
the present revision petition.\n<\/p>\n
           Landlord had filed eviction petition against the tenant on<\/p>\n
3.9.1993. Notice was issued. Process Server was handed over the<\/p>\n
summons (Annexure P5). On the summons it was noticed that the case<\/p>\n
is fixed for 19.11.1993. Karamjit Singh, Process Server, submitted a<\/p>\n
report Ex.PW2\/A on 14.10.1993 that he went to deliver the summons<\/p>\n
and the landlord was found present there. The Process Server asked<\/p>\n
the landlord to accept the summons. On refusal, tenant was told that the<\/p>\n
case      was fixed for 10.11.1993. On 24.12.1994, tenant filed an<\/p>\n
application Ex.P2 in the Court of learned Rent Controller praying that ex-<\/p>\n
parte order be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
           Mr. Mahajan has brought to my notice para 2(a) of the<\/p>\n
application, which reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
           “2(a)     That    no    process     server    ever     visited   the
\n Civil Revision No. 5016 of 2005                                        3<\/span><\/p>\n
                    applicant\/J.D. to effect his service of the summons<\/p>\n
                    at any stage”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          A reply was filed by the landlord to the application for setting<\/p>\n
aside the ex parte order and in the reply para 2(a) reads as under:-<\/p>\n
          “2(a)     This is incorrect that no process server ever visited<\/p>\n
                    the applicant\/JD to effect service in this case. The<\/p>\n
                    reports made by the process serving officials are on<\/p>\n
                    the judicial file. These reports speak for themselves.<\/p>\n
                    These reports are correct. The plea raised is<\/p>\n
                    baseless”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          After the pleadings to the application for setting aside ex parte<\/p>\n
order is concluded, issues were drawn by learned Rent Controller:-<\/p>\n
          1.        Whether the ex parte decree dated 2.5.1994 is liable<\/p>\n
                    to be set aside? OPA<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
          2.        Relief.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          Ajit Singh, tenant, appeared as PW.1. He stated           in his<\/p>\n
evidence that no summons were received by him. No registered letter<\/p>\n
came to him. No munadi or publication was done. He never refused any<\/p>\n
letter. Therefore, the order dated 2.5.1994 be set aside. He also<\/p>\n
examined Karamjit Singh as PW.2. His testimony is attached with the<\/p>\n
revision petition as Annexure P4 and the same reads as under:-<\/p>\n
                    “RW-2 Shri Karamjit Singh, Process Server, Office<\/p>\n
                    of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana, on S.A.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                              I had taken the summons in the case titled<\/p>\n
                    Major S.S. Rana Versus Ajit Singh. The summons<\/p>\n
                    were in the name of Ajit Singh. This summons were
\n Civil Revision No. 5016 of 2005                                        4<\/span><\/p>\n
                    taken to the spot of demised premises. The<\/p>\n
                    aforesaid premises is situated at Industrial Area-B.<\/p>\n
                    My report on the aforesaid summons is Ex.PW-2\/A.<\/p>\n
                    The aforesaid report is in my hand. I had told the<\/p>\n
                    name of the Court, data, month and year. This case<\/p>\n
                    was pending in the Court of Shri Dharam Singh,<\/p>\n
                    Rent Controller which was fixed for 10.11.1993. I<\/p>\n
                    had told Sardar Ajit Singh the date of 10.11.1993. I<\/p>\n
                    did not tell any other date except 10.11.1993 and<\/p>\n
                    had told him to appear in the Court on the said date.<\/p>\n
                    Ajit Singh refused to accept the summons.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                    XXX       XXXX by respondent.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                              I made correct report by visiting the spot at<\/p>\n
                    the spot as per the existing circumstances”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          Mr. Mahajan has stated that there has been misreading of the<\/p>\n
evidence by learned Rent Controller. In the application is has been<\/p>\n
stated by landlord that no summons were received by him whereas<\/p>\n
Process Server has stated that he went there and served the summons<\/p>\n
in which it was stated that the date fixed is 10.11.1993 and Process<\/p>\n
Server has categorically stated that the tenant has refused the service.<\/p>\n
This argument is liable to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
          Perusal of the order shows that due credence ought to have<\/p>\n
been given to the testimony of Ajit Singh, PW.1, which aspire<\/p>\n
confidence. It was a compulsion for the Process Server to state in<\/p>\n
terms of the report. Therefore, he could not wriggle out of the same. A<\/p>\n
valuable property in the industrial town of Ludhiana is on the rent at the
\n Civil Revision No. 5016 of 2005                                      5<\/span><\/p>\n
rate of Rs.700\/- per month. The tenant, in these situations, will be<\/p>\n
vigilant to safeguard his interest. Therefore, no reliance can be placed<\/p>\n
upon the testimony of Process Server and admittedly he has submitted<\/p>\n
Annexure P5, a manipulated report. Learned Rent Controller has rightly<\/p>\n
taken a view that since the date was 19.11.1993, therefore, the Process<\/p>\n
Server stating that date fixed is 10.11.1993 revealed to the tenant<\/p>\n
cannot be relied upon. The conduct of the Process Server is unnatural,<\/p>\n
improbable and unconvincing.     Therefore, order setting aside the ex<\/p>\n
parte order dated 2.5.1994 is upheld.\n<\/p>\n
         It has been stated by Mr. Mahajan that in the present case, ex<\/p>\n
parte order was passed on 2.5.1994. He has further stated that in<\/p>\n
pursuance of the ex parte order, execution proceedings were initiated<\/p>\n
and munadi was conducted on 15.11.1994 and the application was filed<\/p>\n
on 24.12.1994. Therefore, it is after about 38 days application was filed<\/p>\n
and there is a delay of eight days, as strictly, application should have<\/p>\n
been filed within 30 days from the date of knowledge.<\/p>\n
         Mr. Mahajan has canvassed that if the knowledge is to be<\/p>\n
construed, it should be from the date of decree, once it was found that<\/p>\n
there is service effected   upon tenant, necessarily it should not    be<\/p>\n
construed from the date of munadi. This argument cannot be accepted<\/p>\n
in view of the fact that no reliance can be placed on the report of<\/p>\n
Process Server, same being manipulated by the landlord. Even<\/p>\n
otherwise, this Court in Darshan Lal v. Jaswant Singh (Civil Revision<\/p>\n
No.<\/a> 3531 (O&M) decided on 17.10.2008) relying upon various<\/p>\n
judgments of this Court held that the Code of Civil Procedure in entirety<\/p>\n
with all vigour and strength do not apply to the Court of learned Rent
\n Civil Revision No. 5016 of 2005                                       6<\/span><\/p>\n
Controller. Therefore, ex parte order is not barred by limitation. It has<\/p>\n
been held therein that though inordinate delay and laches can be taken<\/p>\n
into consideration but not a ground of limitation. The view taken is<\/p>\n
reproduced hereunder:-\n<\/p>\n
                             “The view taken in Inderjit Pal’s case<\/p>\n
                   (supra) has also been reiterated in ‘Brij Mohan<\/p>\n
                   Aggarwal v. Laxmi Narayan<\/a> @ Lachhu’, 2001 (1)<\/p>\n
                   RCR (Rent) 128 and it was held as under:<\/p>\n
                   “5.       A Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the<\/p>\n
                   case of Shri Subhash Chander v. Shri Rehmat<\/p>\n
                   Ullah, 1972 Rent Control Reporter 1977 was<\/p>\n
                   concerned with relevant provisions of Delhi Rent<\/p>\n
                   Control Act, 1958. Under the provisions of Delhi<\/p>\n
                   Rent Control Act, the Court of the Controller is not<\/p>\n
                   for all practicable purposes a Court nor the Code of<\/p>\n
                   Civil Procedure in entirety applies with all vigour and<\/p>\n
                   strength. It was held that keeping in view this fact,<\/p>\n
                   the provisions of Indian Limitation Act would also not<\/p>\n
                   be attracted. Same view prevailed with this Court in<\/p>\n
                   the case of Inderjit Pal v. Shankar, 1985(1) Rent<\/p>\n
                   Control Reporter 508 and it was held :-<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                             “It is now well settled that the Rent<\/p>\n
                   Controller is not a court. He is an officer persona<\/p>\n
                   designata, specially authorised to adjudicate upon<\/p>\n
                   disputes relating to urban property concerning<\/p>\n
                   ejectment and determination of fair rent of urban
\n Civil Revision No. 5016 of 2005                                         7<\/span><\/p>\n
                   properties. The provisions of Limitation Act are not<\/p>\n
                   applicable      to the proceedings before the Rent<\/p>\n
                   Controller exercising jurisdiction under the Act. The<\/p>\n
                   provisions of the Act are substantially the same as<\/p>\n
                   the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent<\/p>\n
                   Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the<\/p>\n
                   Punjab Act)”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   6.        That being the position in law, the<\/p>\n
                   Controller could not have dismissed the petition on<\/p>\n
                   the ground of limitation but was competent to<\/p>\n
                   consider if there is inordinate delay and laches.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         As stated that learned Rent Controller had concluded the<\/p>\n
matter and the appeal was filed, therefore, learned counsel for<\/p>\n
respondent has placed on record the photocopy of the order passed by<\/p>\n
learned Appellate Authority. During the pendency, much water has<\/p>\n
flown. The parties have led their evidence. The concluding portion of the<\/p>\n
order passed by learned Appellant Authority on 22.2.2008, reads as<\/p>\n
under:\n<\/p>\n
                   “10.      In the light of my above discussion, the<\/p>\n
                   appeal is accepted and the case is remanded back<\/p>\n
                   to the Ld. Rent Controller for freshly assessing the<\/p>\n
                   due rent after taking into account the house tax as<\/p>\n
                   per the rent deed Ex.AW1.4. In view of the peculiar<\/p>\n
                   circumstances of the case, the parties are left to<\/p>\n
                   bear their own costs. Counsel fee is assessed at<\/p>\n
                   Rs.1000\/-. Memo of costs be prepared. The parties
\n Civil Revision No. 5016 of 2005                                      8<\/span><\/p>\n
                   through their counsel are directed to appear before<\/p>\n
                   the Ld. Lower Court on 28.3.08. Lower Court file be<\/p>\n
                   returned immediately while the appeal file be<\/p>\n
                   consigned to the records”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         Even otherwise, I am of the view that balance of equity and fair<\/p>\n
play demand that proceedings between the parties should be decided<\/p>\n
on merits.\n<\/p>\n
         I find no merit in the present revision petition and the same is<\/p>\n
dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                          (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia)
\n                                                               Judge
\nNovember 19, 2008
\n“DK”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Major S.S.Rana vs Ajit Singh on 19 November, 2008 Civil Revision No. 5016 of 2005 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 5016 of 2005 Date of Decision: 19.11.2008 Major S.S.Rana …Petitioner Versus Ajit Singh … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-64108","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMajor S.S.Rana vs Ajit Singh on 19 November, 2008 - 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\/major-s-s-rana-vs-ajit-singh-on-19-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Major S.S.Rana vs Ajit Singh on 19 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/major-s-s-rana-vs-ajit-singh-on-19-november-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-11T11:16:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/major-s-s-rana-vs-ajit-singh-on-19-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/major-s-s-rana-vs-ajit-singh-on-19-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Major S.S.Rana vs Ajit Singh on 19 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-11T11:16:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/major-s-s-rana-vs-ajit-singh-on-19-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1665,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/major-s-s-rana-vs-ajit-singh-on-19-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/major-s-s-rana-vs-ajit-singh-on-19-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/major-s-s-rana-vs-ajit-singh-on-19-november-2008\",\"name\":\"Major S.S.Rana vs Ajit Singh on 19 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-11T11:16:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/major-s-s-rana-vs-ajit-singh-on-19-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/major-s-s-rana-vs-ajit-singh-on-19-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/major-s-s-rana-vs-ajit-singh-on-19-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Major S.S.Rana vs Ajit Singh on 19 November, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Major S.S.Rana vs Ajit Singh on 19 November, 2008 - 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\/major-s-s-rana-vs-ajit-singh-on-19-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Major S.S.Rana vs Ajit Singh on 19 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/major-s-s-rana-vs-ajit-singh-on-19-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-11T11:16:32+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/major-s-s-rana-vs-ajit-singh-on-19-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/major-s-s-rana-vs-ajit-singh-on-19-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Major S.S.Rana vs Ajit Singh on 19 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-11T11:16:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/major-s-s-rana-vs-ajit-singh-on-19-november-2008"},"wordCount":1665,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/major-s-s-rana-vs-ajit-singh-on-19-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/major-s-s-rana-vs-ajit-singh-on-19-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/major-s-s-rana-vs-ajit-singh-on-19-november-2008","name":"Major S.S.Rana vs Ajit Singh on 19 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-11T11:16:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/major-s-s-rana-vs-ajit-singh-on-19-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/major-s-s-rana-vs-ajit-singh-on-19-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/major-s-s-rana-vs-ajit-singh-on-19-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Major S.S.Rana vs Ajit Singh on 19 November, 2008"}]},{"@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\/64108","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=64108"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64108\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=64108"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=64108"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=64108"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}