{"id":68792,"date":"2011-01-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-01-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/habeeb-vs-lucia-on-20-january-2011"},"modified":"2015-10-27T23:33:33","modified_gmt":"2015-10-27T18:03:33","slug":"habeeb-vs-lucia-on-20-january-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/habeeb-vs-lucia-on-20-january-2011","title":{"rendered":"Habeeb vs Lucia on 20 January, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Habeeb vs Lucia on 20 January, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 20\/01\/2011\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL\n\nC.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1189 of 2004\n&amp; CMP No.9406 of 2004\n\n1.Habeeb\n\n2.A.Basheer Ahmed    \t\t..Petitioners\/Respondents\n\t\t\t  \t  Petitioners\nvs\t\t\n\nLucia\t\t\t\t..Respondent\/Petitioner\/\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t..Respondent\n\nPRAYER\n\nCivil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of\nIndia against the fair and final order dated 15.12.2003 made in I.A.No.16 of\n2003 in R.C.O.P.No.6 of 2002 on the file of the Rent Controller (Principal\nDistrict Munsif) Ramanad.\n\n!For Petitioners... Mr.V.Chinnakaruppan\n^For Respondent ... Mr.V.Raghavachari\t\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe Revision Petitioners\/Respondents\/Tenants have preferred the present<br \/>\nCivil Revision Petition as against the order dated 15.12.2003 in I.A.No.16 of<br \/>\n2003 in R.C.O.P.No.6 of 2002 passed by the learned Rent Controller<br \/>\nviz.,Principal District Munsif, Ramanathapuram.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.The learned Rent Controller namely, the Principal District<br \/>\nMunsif,Ramanad, while passing an order in I.A.No.16 of 2003 in R.C.O.P.No.6 of<br \/>\n2002 on 15.12.2003, has among other things observed that the reason assigned by<br \/>\nthe Respondent\/Petitioner in application is considered to be a true one and also<br \/>\nopined that by allowing the Interlocutory Application, no prejudice will be<br \/>\ncaused to the Revision Petitioner\/Tenant and added further has allowed the<br \/>\napplication with costs with a view to provide one more opportunity to further<br \/>\nprosecute the petition and also in the interest of justice.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners\/Tenants submits that<br \/>\nthe impugned order of the learned Rent Controller in I.A.No.16 of 2003 in<br \/>\nR.C.O.P.No.6 of 2002 dated 15.12.2003, is contrary to the law and as a matter of<br \/>\nfact, the learned Rent Controller has allowed the Interlocutory Application<br \/>\nwithout assigning any valid reasons.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.Advancing his arguments, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for<br \/>\nthe Petitioners that in the affidavit in I.A.No.16 of 2003 filed by the<br \/>\nRespondent praying to condone the delay of 155 days in filing the petition to<br \/>\nset aside the ex-parte order dated 16.09.2002, the Respondent has not given any<br \/>\nsufficient and valid reasons for condonation of delay of 155 days except making<br \/>\na mention that she has been suffering from stomach pain.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.Expatiating his submissions, the learned Counsel for the Revision<br \/>\nPetitioners\/Tenants submits that there is no explanation from the Respondent as<br \/>\nto how many days she has been suffering from stomach ache. Added further, the<br \/>\nRespondent has not produced any Doctor&#8217;s Certificate besides adducing no oral<br \/>\nevidence before the learned Rent Controller in I.A.No.16 of 2003.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6.Apart from the above, it is the plea of the learned Counsel for the<br \/>\nPetitioners that the Respondent\/Landlady has never disputed the quantum of rent<br \/>\nof Rs. 1,200\/- per month and the period.  But, she refused to receive the rent<br \/>\nonly with the ulterior motive and the proper course of auction for the Revision<br \/>\nPetitioner\/Tenant is to project the petition as per Section 8(5) of The Tamil<br \/>\nNadu Buildings (Lease and Control) Act,1960.  In fact, the Respondent\/Landlady<br \/>\nis not an aggrieved person in any manner in lieu of the ex-parte order dated<br \/>\n16.09.2002.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7.Per contra, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the<br \/>\nRespondent\/Landlady that the learned Rent Controller has allowed the I.A.No.16<br \/>\nof 2003 filed by the Respondent\/Landlady (filed for condonation of delay of 155<br \/>\ndays) by accepting the averments made by the Respondent in I.A.No.16 of 2003, to<br \/>\nbe a true one and also further opined that by allowing the I.A.No.16 of 2003 no<br \/>\nprejudice will be caused to the Revision Petitioner and has also opined that one<br \/>\nmore opportunity is to be given to the Respondent\/Landlady to further prosecute<br \/>\nthe petition and resultantly, allowed the I.A. with costs in the interest of<br \/>\njustice. Indeed, the learned Rent Controller has exercised his judicial<br \/>\ndiscretion in a fair and proper manner and the said discretion so exercised by<br \/>\nthe learned Rent Controller cannot be construed to be an arbitrary or capricious<br \/>\none and consequently, prays for the dismissal of the petition filed by the<br \/>\npetitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8.This Court has heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner<br \/>\nand the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent\/Landlady and noticed their<br \/>\ncontentions.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9.It is to be noted that in I.A.No.16 of 2003, the Respondent\/Landlady has<br \/>\ncategorically averred that she is a lady and more often, she has been suffering<br \/>\nfrom stomach pain and as such, she has not been in a position to meet her<br \/>\nCounsel to file the application in time and also that there is an occasion in<br \/>\ndelay of 155 days for the period from 01.10.2002 to 03.03.2003.  The absence of<br \/>\nthe Respondent\/Petitioner is not wanton.  However, the Revision Petitioners have<br \/>\nfiled the counter in I.A.No.16 of 2003 in R.C.O.P.No.6 of 2002 to the effect<br \/>\nthat the Respondent\/Landlady will not have to prove the averments made by her in<br \/>\nher affidavit in I.A.No.16 of 2003 and the reasons assigned by the<br \/>\nRespondent\/Landlady that she has been suffered from stomach ailment frequently<br \/>\nand therefore, she has not appeared before the Rent Controller on 16.09.2002 and<br \/>\nconsequently, an ex-parte decree has been passed.  Furthermore, in I.A.No.16 of<br \/>\n2003 it is not mentioned that the Respondent\/Landlady has been suffering from<br \/>\nstomach ache for six months and for the condonation of delay of 155 days, in<br \/>\nI.A.No.16 of 2003, no proper reasons has been assigned and therefore, I.A.No.16<br \/>\nof 2003 is not maintainable in law.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10.Generally, when a Court of law deals with condonation of delay, it has<br \/>\nto deal with the same not with pedantic approach, instead, a Court of law has to<br \/>\nadopt a liberal and lenient view and that too, adopting a pragmatic common sense<br \/>\nrational approach.  By and large, a litigant\/party does not project an<br \/>\napplication belatedly. When delivering of substantial justice, technical<br \/>\nconsiderations are pitted against each other, then the deliverance of<br \/>\nsubstantial justice will have to prefer by a Court of law  overriding<br \/>\ntechnicalities by allowing a condonation delay of application. The highest thing<br \/>\nthat can happen is that a party is permitted to enter into the main arena of<br \/>\nlegal proceedings and there is a possibility of main cause being to be decided<br \/>\non merits, of course, after hearing the parties.  It is needless to point out<br \/>\nthat the length and breadth of delay mentioned by the party in condonation delay<br \/>\napplication is not a material factor.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11.On going through the orders of the learned Rent Controller in I.A.No.16<br \/>\nof 2003 in R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2003 dated 15.12.2003, it is quite evident that the<br \/>\nlearned Rent Controller has accepted the reason assigned by the<br \/>\nRespondent\/Landlady that she is a lady and she has been suffering from stomach<br \/>\nailment frequently.  Though an argument is advanced on behalf of the petitioner<br \/>\nthat the Respondent\/Landlady for her ailment of stomach pain, she has not<br \/>\nproduced the Medical Certificate, this court opines that non production of the<br \/>\nsaid Medical Certificate before the learned Rent Controller in I.A.No.6 of 2002<br \/>\nhas not  factually affected the case projected by her.  The learned Rent<br \/>\nController or a Court of law has power to exercise the judicial discretion while<br \/>\ndealing with application  before it.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12.In the present case on hand, the learned Rent Controller has accepted<br \/>\nthe reasons projected by the Respondent\/Landlady that she is a lady and further,<br \/>\nshe has been suffering from stomach pain and the reasons so assigned have been<br \/>\nfound to be a case of sufficient cause by the learned Rent Controller and by<br \/>\nexercising the said judicial discretion, the learned Rent Controller has not<br \/>\ncommitted any material irregularity or patent illegality warranting interference<br \/>\nat the hands of this Court sitting in the Revision.  Looking it from any angle,<br \/>\nthe Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits.  Viewed in the perspective, the<br \/>\nCivil Revision Petition fails.\n<\/p>\n<p> \t13.In the result the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed leaving the<br \/>\nparties to bear their own costs.  Consequently, the order passed by the Rent<br \/>\nController in I.A.No.16 of 2003 in R.C.O.P.No.6 of 2002 is confirmed by this<br \/>\nCourt for the reasons assigned by this Court in this Revision Petition.<br \/>\nConsequently connected CMP is also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>gsr<\/p>\n<p>To<br \/>\nThe Rent Controller<br \/>\n(Principal District Munsif)<br \/>\nRamanad.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Habeeb vs Lucia on 20 January, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20\/01\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1189 of 2004 &amp; CMP No.9406 of 2004 1.Habeeb 2.A.Basheer Ahmed ..Petitioners\/Respondents Petitioners vs Lucia ..Respondent\/Petitioner\/ ..Respondent PRAYER Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India [&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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-68792","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Habeeb vs Lucia on 20 January, 2011 - 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\/habeeb-vs-lucia-on-20-january-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Habeeb vs Lucia on 20 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/habeeb-vs-lucia-on-20-january-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-27T18:03:33+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/habeeb-vs-lucia-on-20-january-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/habeeb-vs-lucia-on-20-january-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Habeeb vs Lucia on 20 January, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-27T18:03:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/habeeb-vs-lucia-on-20-january-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1296,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/habeeb-vs-lucia-on-20-january-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/habeeb-vs-lucia-on-20-january-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/habeeb-vs-lucia-on-20-january-2011\",\"name\":\"Habeeb vs Lucia on 20 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-27T18:03:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/habeeb-vs-lucia-on-20-january-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/habeeb-vs-lucia-on-20-january-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/habeeb-vs-lucia-on-20-january-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Habeeb vs Lucia on 20 January, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Habeeb vs Lucia on 20 January, 2011 - 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\/habeeb-vs-lucia-on-20-january-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Habeeb vs Lucia on 20 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/habeeb-vs-lucia-on-20-january-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-27T18:03:33+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/habeeb-vs-lucia-on-20-january-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/habeeb-vs-lucia-on-20-january-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Habeeb vs Lucia on 20 January, 2011","datePublished":"2011-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-27T18:03:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/habeeb-vs-lucia-on-20-january-2011"},"wordCount":1296,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/habeeb-vs-lucia-on-20-january-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/habeeb-vs-lucia-on-20-january-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/habeeb-vs-lucia-on-20-january-2011","name":"Habeeb vs Lucia on 20 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-27T18:03:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/habeeb-vs-lucia-on-20-january-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/habeeb-vs-lucia-on-20-january-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/habeeb-vs-lucia-on-20-january-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Habeeb vs Lucia on 20 January, 2011"}]},{"@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\/68792","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=68792"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68792\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=68792"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=68792"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=68792"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}