{"id":67519,"date":"2010-01-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-patel-on-19-january-2010"},"modified":"2017-12-22T09:06:05","modified_gmt":"2017-12-22T03:36:05","slug":"patel-vs-patel-on-19-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-patel-on-19-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Patel vs Patel on 19 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Patel vs Patel on 19 January, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: H.K.Rathod,&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\nCA\/9865\/2009\t 5\/ 7\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION No. 9865 of 2009\n \n\nIn\n\n\n \n\nFIRST\nAPPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) No. 5020 of 2009\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nPATEL\nREVIDAS KHEMCHANDDAS - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nPATEL\nKANTIBHAI AMBARAMDAS - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nYN RAVANI for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nMR AV PRAJAPATI 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\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 19\/01\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>1.\tHeard<br \/>\nlearned advocate Mr.Ankit Shah for learned advocate Mr.Y.N.Ravani on<br \/>\nbehalf of applicant and learned advocate Mr.A.V.Prajapati for<br \/>\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tThis<br \/>\napplication is preferred by applicant with a prayer to condone the<br \/>\ndelay of 895 days caused in filing first appeal. This application has<br \/>\nbeen opposed by respondent by filing affidavit-in-reply in<br \/>\nNovember,2009.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tLearned<br \/>\nadvocate Mr.Shah appearing for applicant submitted that delay<br \/>\noccurred due to genuine reasons which considered to be a sufficient<br \/>\ncause for condoning delay in filing first appeal. The judgment and<br \/>\ndecree dated 7.12.2006 passed by 3rd Senior Civil Judge,<br \/>\nMehsana in Regular Civil Suit No.131 of 2003 where application was<br \/>\nmade by applicant for certified copy  and on the very next date i.e.<br \/>\non 8.12.2006 which was ready for delivery on 18.12.2006 and period of<br \/>\n90 days started from 19.12.2006 and last date of filing first appeal<br \/>\nas per limitation from 19.3.2007. That various necessary instructions<br \/>\nwere given to advocate practicing at Mehsana but that advocate has<br \/>\ninformed to applicant to engage the advocate practicing in the<br \/>\nGujarat High Court, who will file appeal. Before deciding this<br \/>\nquestion to engage advocate practicing in the Gujarat High Court, one<br \/>\nincident occurred on 27.1.2007 the only son of the applicant viz.<br \/>\nMr.Amrish Patel was kidnapped while he was on a business trip from<br \/>\nAhmedabad to Mehsana on 27.1.2007. He was dealing in the business of<br \/>\ngold and hence on 27.1.2007 he had to deliver 3.5 kg. Of gold worth<br \/>\nRs.35 lacs. The culprit kidnapped the son of the applicant with<br \/>\nmotive to lot and ultimately murdered the son of the applicant on<br \/>\n28.1.2007. The death certificate of the applicant&#8217;s only son as well<br \/>\nas news article in Divya Bhaskar newspaper are produced on record.<br \/>\nThe son of the applicant was murdered at very young age of 31 years<br \/>\nand such incident occurred during limitation of the judgment<br \/>\ndelivered in the Regular Civil Suit No. 131 of 2003 filed by<br \/>\napplicant. That due to such tragedy, applicant lost his mental<br \/>\ncontrol and was not in full sense due to the sudden death of his only<br \/>\nson. The applicant suffered heavy pain and lost mentally, physically<br \/>\nand economically to the tune of Rs.35 lacs and also because of the<br \/>\nfact that he was inquired very now and then by police to him and his<br \/>\nentire family and further police was also not cooperating with<br \/>\napplicant regards to the investigation and other formalities<br \/>\nconcerning the case of death of his only son. Due to aforesaid<br \/>\nincident, applicant was not in proper mental frame of mind an was not<br \/>\nleading life as he was not able to overcome the death of his only<br \/>\nson. Therefore, he left for pilgrimage as he was under impression<br \/>\nthat advocate at Mehsana has already filed his first appeal in the<br \/>\nGujarat High Court by making contact with an advocate of Gujarat High<br \/>\nCourt. The applicant has left his hometown with a view to overcome<br \/>\nthe death of his only son and with a belief that his case is pursued<br \/>\nby an advocate of Mehsana. Since long he was out of station and<br \/>\nfrequently applicant was going out of station and he could not be<br \/>\ncontacted by his advocate at Mehsana. Thereafter, contact was made of<br \/>\nadvocate, who has given message to him that he was not filed any<br \/>\nappeal because his signature is necessary in Vakalatnama. Ultimately,<br \/>\nhe has decided to file first appeal but, meanwhile there was a delay.<br \/>\nTherefore, present application is filed with a prayer to condone the<br \/>\ndelay in filing the first appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tThe<br \/>\nopponent has objected the prayer made in delay condonation<br \/>\napplication and submitted that there is no medical certificate is<br \/>\nproduced qua the mental status of applicant. Therefore, such<br \/>\ncontention cannot be taken into consideration for condoning the<br \/>\ndelay.  It is necessary to note that opponent is not disputing the<br \/>\nfacts of murder of  only son of applicant. Therefore, according to<br \/>\nopponent, only when the  public notice was issued in newspaper, the<br \/>\napplicant is filing the appeal after period of 895 days just to grab<br \/>\nmoney under the guise of the objection to the public notice published<br \/>\nin the newspaper. Therefore, according to opponent, delay cannot be<br \/>\ncondoned.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tI<br \/>\nhave considered submissions made by both learned advocates and also<br \/>\naverments made in this application as well  as reply filed by<br \/>\nopponent. I have also perused death certificate of Patel Amrishbhai<br \/>\ndated 28.1.2007 and news published in Divya Bhaskar and also public<br \/>\nnotice dated 13.8.2009 and also a public notice issued by applicant.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tIn<br \/>\nshort, question of delay is to be considered by this Court while<br \/>\nkeeping in mind the fact that length of delay is not much relevant.<br \/>\nBut the question is that delay has been explained by applicant with<br \/>\nsufficient cause or not and delay occurred due to reason which was<br \/>\nfound beyond control of applicant. Looking to facts which are not in<br \/>\ndispute between both parties that on 27.1.2007 before completion of<br \/>\nlimitation period, accident was occurred where only son of applicant<br \/>\nwas murdered by some culprit. Naturally it gives set back to the<br \/>\nfather whose son has been murdered by culprit. During this period, he<br \/>\nmay not be able to take decision or take care to file first appeal<br \/>\nagainst judgment and decree delivered on 7.12.2006.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tThe<br \/>\naspect of &#8216;sufficient cause&#8217; has been interpreted by Apex Court in<br \/>\ncase of <a href=\"\/doc\/1983086\/\">State of Karnataka v. Y. Moideen Kunhi<\/a> (dead) by LRs &amp;<br \/>\nOrs. Reported in AIR 2009 SC 2577. Relevant observations of aforesaid<br \/>\ndecision are in Para.16 and 19, which is quoted as under :\n<\/p>\n<p> 16.\tThis<br \/>\nCourt has in appropriate cases even condoned delays of over 30 years<br \/>\nin filing of <a href=\"\/doc\/644322\/\">SLPs. In Nand Kishore v. State of Punjab<\/a> 1995 (6) SCC<br \/>\n614 this court held:\n<\/p>\n<p> &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;13.\n<\/p>\n<p>The step of the three-member Bench so taken reveal its mind as<br \/>\nreflected in the above proceedings. Their Lordships wanted to do<br \/>\nsubstantial justice. It was thought better to advise the petitioner<br \/>\nto file special leave petition. As we view this order, having invited<br \/>\nthe petitioner to file the special leave petition, it is no longer<br \/>\nadvisable or appropriate for us to retrace back the step put forward<br \/>\nby the three- member Bench. It is significant to recall that the writ<br \/>\napplication was dismissed on 5-2-1962 and the moment Moti Ram Deka<br \/>\ncase appeared on the scene, the appellant or 24-2-1964, within<br \/>\nlimitation, brought forward his suit which got strengthened by Gurdev<br \/>\nSingh case appearing within a couple of months of its filing. The<br \/>\nappellant-special leave petitioner was thus bona fide pursuing an<br \/>\nappropriate remedy for all these years. In these circumstances, we<br \/>\nthink that an appropriate case for condonation of delay of the<br \/>\nintervening period has been made out. We, therefore, allow CC 11644<br \/>\nof 1991 and condone the long durated delay in these exceptional<br \/>\ncircumstances. On doing so, we grant leave to appeal. The appeal thus<br \/>\narising and the Civil Appeal No. 632 of 1975 may now be disposed of<br \/>\ntogether&#8230;.\n<\/p>\n<p>19.\tThe<br \/>\nexpression `sufficient cause  as appearing in Section 5 of the<br \/>\nIndian Limitation Act, 1963 (in short the `Limitation Act ) must<br \/>\nreceive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice<br \/>\nas was noted by this Court in    G. Ramegowda, Major etc. v. The<br \/>\nSpecial Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore (AIR 1988 SC 897). Para 8<br \/>\nof the judgment reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p> 8.<br \/>\n&#8230;&#8230;.The law of limitation is, no doubt, the same for a private<br \/>\ncitizen as for governmental authorities. Government, like any other<br \/>\nlitigant must take responsibility for the acts or omissions of its<br \/>\nofficers. But a somewhat different complexion is imparted to the<br \/>\nmatter where Government makes out a case where public interest was<br \/>\nshown to have suffered owing to acts of fraud or bad faith on the<br \/>\npart of its officers or agents and where the officers were clearly at<br \/>\ncross-purposes with it.\n<\/p>\n<p>Therefore,<br \/>\nin assessing what, in a particular case, constitutes  sufficient<br \/>\ncause  for purposes of Section 5, it might, perhaps, be somewhat<br \/>\nunrealistic to exclude from the considerations that go into the<br \/>\njudicial verdict, these factors which are peculiar to and<br \/>\ncharacteristic of the functioning of the government. Governmental<br \/>\ndecisions are proverbially slow encumbered, as they are, by a<br \/>\nconsiderable degree of procedural red tape in the process of their<br \/>\nmaking. A certain amount of latitude is, therefore, not<br \/>\nimpermissible. It is rightly said that those who bear responsibility<br \/>\nof Government must have  a little play at the joints . Due<br \/>\nrecognition of these limitations on governmental functioning   of<br \/>\ncourse, within reasonable limits   is necessary if the judicial<br \/>\napproach is not to be rendered unrealistic. It would, perhaps, be<br \/>\nunfair and unrealistic to put government and private parties on the<br \/>\nsame footing in all respects in such matters. Implicit in the very<br \/>\nnature of governmental functioning is procedural delay incidental to<br \/>\nthe decision-making process. In the opinion of the High Court, the<br \/>\nconduct of the law officers of the Government placed the Government<br \/>\nin a predicament and that it was one of those cases where the mala<br \/>\nfides of the officers should not be imputed to Government. It relied<br \/>\nupon and trusted its law officers. Lindley, M.R., in the In re<br \/>\nNational Bank of Wales Ltd. (1899) 2 Ch. 629 at p.673 observed,<br \/>\nthough in a different context:\n<\/p>\n<p> Business<br \/>\ncannot be carried on upon principles of distrust. Men in responsible<br \/>\npositions must be trusted by those above them, as well as by those<br \/>\nbelow them, until there is reason to distrust them.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tConsidering<br \/>\naforesaid decision of Apex Court and observations made therein when<br \/>\ndelay occurred due to abnormal circumstances which have been pointed<br \/>\nout by applicant, naturally in such circumstances applicant was not<br \/>\nable to take care of such legal proceedings which has not been filed<br \/>\nin time by his advocate practicing at Mehsana. Therefore, according<br \/>\nto my opinion, considering fact that decision given by trial Court on<br \/>\n7.12.2006 and immediately on the next date i.e. 8.12.2006 application<br \/>\nwas made for certified copy to be obtained from Court concerned which<br \/>\nsuggests that prior to incident sufficient care was taken by<br \/>\napplicant to obtain certified copy by filing application on next date<br \/>\ni.e. on 8.12.2006. Therefore, there is no intentional or willful<br \/>\ndelay occurred because of lethargic approach of applicant, but<br \/>\nlooking to facts of this case there is a genuine reason in not filing<br \/>\nthe appeal in time and cause which has been shown by applicant is<br \/>\njustified and can be considered as sufficient cause. Therefore,<br \/>\naccording to my opinion, applicant has satisfactorily explained delay<br \/>\nof 895 days caused in filing first appeal. Such cause is considered<br \/>\nto be a sufficient and genuine cause. Therefore, contentions raised<br \/>\nby learned advocate Mr.Prajapati cannot be accepted. Delay of 895<br \/>\ndays caused in filing first appeal is condoned in the interest of<br \/>\njustice. Rule is made absolute accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>(H.K.RATHOD,J.)<\/p>\n<p>(vipul)<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Patel vs Patel on 19 January, 2010 Author: H.K.Rathod,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CA\/9865\/2009 5\/ 7 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9865 of 2009 In FIRST APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) No. 5020 of 2009 ========================================================= PATEL REVIDAS KHEMCHANDDAS &#8211; Petitioner(s) Versus PATEL KANTIBHAI [&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-67519","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>Patel vs Patel on 19 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\/patel-vs-patel-on-19-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Patel vs Patel on 19 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-patel-on-19-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=\"2010-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-22T03:36:05+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\\\/patel-vs-patel-on-19-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-vs-patel-on-19-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Patel vs Patel on 19 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-22T03:36:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-vs-patel-on-19-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1793,\"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\\\/patel-vs-patel-on-19-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-vs-patel-on-19-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-vs-patel-on-19-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Patel vs Patel on 19 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-22T03:36:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-vs-patel-on-19-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-vs-patel-on-19-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-vs-patel-on-19-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Patel vs Patel on 19 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":"Patel vs Patel on 19 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\/patel-vs-patel-on-19-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Patel vs Patel on 19 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-patel-on-19-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":"2010-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-22T03:36:05+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\/patel-vs-patel-on-19-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-patel-on-19-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Patel vs Patel on 19 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-22T03:36:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-patel-on-19-january-2010"},"wordCount":1793,"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\/patel-vs-patel-on-19-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-patel-on-19-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-patel-on-19-january-2010","name":"Patel vs Patel on 19 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-22T03:36:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-patel-on-19-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-patel-on-19-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-patel-on-19-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Patel vs Patel on 19 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\/67519","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=67519"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67519\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=67519"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=67519"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=67519"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}