{"id":70644,"date":"2010-06-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-singh-vs-raghunath-holya-mahale-on-16-june-2010"},"modified":"2019-01-22T01:43:24","modified_gmt":"2019-01-21T20:13:24","slug":"amar-singh-vs-raghunath-holya-mahale-on-16-june-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-singh-vs-raghunath-holya-mahale-on-16-june-2010","title":{"rendered":"Amar Singh vs Raghunath Holya Mahale on 16 June, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Amar Singh vs Raghunath Holya Mahale on 16 June, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: A.P. Bhangale<\/div>\n
                                                                1\n\n\n                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                                 \n                                    BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.\n\n                                        SECOND APPEAL NO. 11\/2010\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                    \n    Amar Singh  s\/o Harisingh Thakur\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                   \n    Aged  about   65 years\n    occu:  Business\n    R\/o   Plot No.  368  Shrinagar, Nagpur.                                  ...               ...APPELLANT\n\n\n\n\n                                                                   \n                      v e r s u s       \n    1.                Shri Tulshiram s\/o  Shri Kisan Ingle\n                                       \n                      Aged about 65 years\n                      occupation : agriculturist  \n                      R\/o Plot No.36, Lane No.3  \n                      Tajnagar, Nagpur.\n       \n\n\n    2.                Smt. Mangalabai w\/o Digamber Meshram\n                      Aged about   42 years,  occu: Agril.\n    \n\n\n\n                      R\/o Old Subedhari   Layout\n                      Plot No. 42,  Nagpur.\n\n    3.                Shri Digamber s\/o Balkrishna Meshram\n\n\n\n\n\n                      Aged  45 years,  occu: Business\n                      R\/o Old  Subhedhar Layout Nagpur...                                      ...RESPONDENTS\n\n\n    ...........................................................................................................................\n\n\n\n\n\n                      Mr. Shyam Dewani, Adv.for   appellant\n                      Mr. R.G.Vaidya, Adv.for Respondent no.1\n                      Mr R L Khapre, Adv.for Respondents 2 and  3\n\n    ...........................................................................................................................\n\n\n                                                           CORAM:   A.P.BHANGALE, J.\n                                                           DATED :   16th   June,2010\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                    ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:01:13 :::\n                                                  2\n\n\n    JUDGMENT :   \n<\/pre>\n
                 By  means of  this Second Appeal,  the appellant  is praying <\/p>\n
    for   quashing and   setting aside the order   dated 28.1.2008 passed in <\/p>\n
    Miscellaneous  Civil Application  (MCA) No.207\/2007  passed by learned <\/p>\n
    Ad-hoc District Judge-3, Nagpur.\n<\/p>\n
    2.           Perused the impugned order  whereby the learned Judge  of <\/p>\n
    the Court below   was pleased to reject the application for condonation <\/p>\n
    of delay.\n<\/p>\n
    3.           The facts briefly mentioned   are that,   the appellant herein <\/p>\n
    had filed   a suit for specific performance of contract which was entered <\/p>\n
    on 21.1.1997   and 17.11.2004   for purchasing  the land  admeasuring <\/p>\n
    3.24       acres.     The   suit     was   filed   on   15.5.2006.   In   that   suit,   the <\/p>\n
    respondent nos. 2  and 3  moved an application for intervention claiming <\/p>\n
    that  Respondent No.2 purchased half  portion of the land  from wife of <\/p>\n
    Respondent   No.1   during   her   lifetime   through     the   power   of   attorney <\/p>\n
    holder     of wife of Respondent No.1   (from Respondent No.3 herein).\n<\/p>\n
    The   reference   was made to previous litigation   i.e. Special Civil Suit <\/p>\n
    No. 569\/2004. In that application concerning   the land in question as <\/p>\n
    also   counter   claim   which       was   made   by   respondent     nos.   2   and   3 <\/p>\n
    against the  decree which was passed in Spl.Civil Suit No. 569\/2004, the <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:01:13 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
    respondent no. 1 had  claimed adversely  to the right of the  respondent <\/p>\n
    no.2;  but   on 26.10.2005      the appeal was withdrawn clandestinely <\/p>\n
    by respondent no.1. Thus, relying upon the judgment passed in Spl.Civil <\/p>\n
    Suit     No.     569\/2004       the   respondent   nos.   2     and     3       moved   an <\/p>\n
    application   for   intervention   claiming   that   the   said       judgment   had <\/p>\n
    attained finality.\n<\/p>\n
    4.           The appellant who was  aggrieved by the said judgment  and <\/p>\n
    decree   passed   in   Spl.Civil   Suit   No.     569\/2004,           preferred   an <\/p>\n
    application  seeking  permission of the Court to file  appeal along with <\/p>\n
    an application for condonation of delay, so as to challenge the judgment <\/p>\n
    and   order   (which   was   passed   in   Spl.Civil   Suit   No.       569\/2004).\n<\/p>\n
    However by the impugned order  dated 28.1.2008, the learned Judge of <\/p>\n
    the Court below           was pleased to reject the MCA No.207\/2007 and <\/p>\n
    consequently the prayer for condonation of delay. The appellant had also <\/p>\n
    preferred   Writ   Petition   in   order   to   challenge   the   impugned   order.\n<\/p>\n
    However, the appellant chose to withdrawn the Writ Petition in view of <\/p>\n
    the remedy  available  to file Second Appeal challenging the said order.\n<\/p>\n
    5.           The appellant raised substantial question of law, firstly , as to <\/p>\n
    whether the learned Judge  was right in adopting  a technical  approach <\/p>\n
    while   rejecting   application   for   condonation   of   delay   and   secondly, <\/p>\n
    whether the course adopted by the learned Judge of the Court below was <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:01:13 :::<\/span>
\n                                               4<\/span><\/p>\n
    was in accordance with law laid down by this Court  in  case of   Holya  <\/p>\n
    Lasha     Mahale   and   another             vs.       Raghunath   Holya   Mahale  <\/p>\n
    reported in  2007 (1) Bom.C.R.   506     :    2006 (5) Mh.L.J. 80).\n<\/p>\n
    6.          Heard  admissions  at the Bar and also perused the impugned <\/p>\n
    order  in the light  of the questions of law  raised above.\n<\/p>\n
    7.          It does appear that the appellant came to know about   the <\/p>\n
    previous   litigation i.e. SCS   No. 569\/2004 while    the said suit   was <\/p>\n
    referred to in the   judgment,   by the   respondents during pendency of <\/p>\n
    the  suit for specific  performance of contract, filed on 15.5.2006.  It is <\/p>\n
    not   disputed   before   me   that   the   delay     condonation   application   was <\/p>\n
    rejected by  learned Ad-hoc District Judge-3 Nagpur     vide order below <\/p>\n
    MCA No. 207\/2007 without recording  evidence of the parties or without <\/p>\n
    calling upon   parties to file     their affidavits.     Learned counsel for the <\/p>\n
    appellant made    a reference to Holya Mahale’s    case   (supra)       and <\/p>\n
    submitted that in view of O.XIX R.1   of the Civil Procedure Code,  any <\/p>\n
    Court may  at any time  for sufficient  reason order   that any particular <\/p>\n
    fact or  facts may  be proved by  affidavit, or that the   affidavit of any <\/p>\n
    witness may be  read  at the    hearing on such conditions as the Court <\/p>\n
    thinks   reasonable;   provided that where it appears to the Court either <\/p>\n
    party bona fide desires production of witness for cross-examination,  and <\/p>\n
    that such witness can be produced for  cross-examination,  an order shall <\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:01:13 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 5<\/span><\/p>\n
    not be made authorising  the  evidence of such   witness to be given by <\/p>\n
    affidavit.  This Court  in paragraph 6  of Holya  Mahale’s   case  ( supra ) <\/p>\n
    observed  as below :\n<\/p>\n
                  “6.             Thus, the     Court can   read the evidence
\n                  led by way of the affidavit  after having  recorded the
\n                  sufficient  reasons for accepting such affidavits and, if <\/p>\n
                  no   such   order   is   passed   by   the   Court,   the   Court   is
\n                  under obligation to follow the regular procedure of <\/p>\n
                  recording   the   evidence   by   way   of   examination-in-
\n                  chief   and cross-examination.    In the present matter,
\n                  it   is   further   noticed   that   none   of   the     parties   have <\/p>\n
                  filed pursis  informing the Court that the evidence is
\n                  closed by either side. Thus, it is transpired that the
\n                  matter   is   disposed   of   simply   on   the   basis   of   the
\n                  pleadings   of   the   parties   without   recording   of <\/p>\n
                  evidence in the Court and\/ or   obtaining   evidence
\n                  as per order IXI Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, <\/p>\n
                  1908. In the absence of pursis of the parties that they
\n                  do not intend to lead   evidence  and\/  or  they have
\n                  closed evidence, it  was inappropriate  on the part of
\n                  the First Appellate Court to dispose of the matter on <\/p>\n
                  the basis of the pleadings of the parties simpliciter.
\n                  Therefore,   on   this   aspect   of   the   matter,   the   order
\n                  passed by the    First Appellate  Court suffers  from  a
\n                  procedural drawback and requires to be set aside. It is
\n                  accordingly set aside.”\n<\/p>\n
    Thus, this Court   was pleased to remand the case to the first Appellate <\/p>\n
    Court     by     setting     aside   the   delay   condonation   application   after <\/p>\n
    recording evidence of the parties in the Court  \/or     by way of  affidavit <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:01:13 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
    after passing  an order under O.XIX R. 1  of CPC.\n<\/p>\n
    8.          Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that in the <\/p>\n
    matter of condonation of   delay,   the Courts   are   required to adopt a <\/p>\n
    liberal   approach     as per the guidelines mentioned in  Collector, Land <\/p>\n
    Acquisition,   Anantnag     and   another         vs.   Mst.   Katiji   and   others <\/p>\n
    reported in AIR    1987 SC   1353.  In Para no.5 of the said judgment, <\/p>\n
    the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the following  five principles :-\n<\/p>\n
                  “(1)<\/p>\n
                              Ordinarily     a   litigant   does   not   stand   to
\n                  benefit by lodging   an appeal late.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  (2) Refusing   to       condone   delay   can   result   in     a \n                  meritorious       matter   being   thrown   out     at   the   very \n                  threshold     and cause of justice   being   defeated. As \n<\/pre>\n
                  against this  when  delay is  condoned the  highest that <\/p>\n
                  can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits
\n                  after hearing the parties.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  (3) “Every day’s delay   must be   explained” does not
\n                  mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why
\n                  not   every   hour’s   delay,   every   second’s   delay?   The <\/p>\n
                  doctrine   must be applied in a rational common sense
\n                  pragmatic   manner.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  (4) When         substantial   justice     and   technical
\n                  considerations are pitted against   each other, cause of <\/p>\n
                  substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other
\n                  side   cannot     claim   to   have   vested     right   in   injustice
\n                  being done  because of  non-deliberate delay.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  (5)         There   is   no   presumption   that   delay   is
\n                  occasioned   deliberately,   or   on   account   of   culpable
\n                  negligence,   or   on   account   of   mala   fides.       A   litigant
\n                  does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact
\n                  he runs  a serious risk.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:01:13 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 7<\/span><\/p>\n
    It appears that this   ruling was also followed in  Sonerao   S. Patil vs.  <\/p>\n
    Godavaribai : 1999 (2) Mh.L.J.    Page 272.\n<\/p>\n
    9.           Per contra, learned counsel for  respondents 2 & 3   submitted <\/p>\n
    that  each  day’s delay is  required to be  explained.   He submitted that <\/p>\n
    in the facts and cirumstances the impugned order was correctly  passed <\/p>\n
    and he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
    10.<\/p>\n
                 I   have   considered   the   submissions     as   also   citations   relied <\/p>\n
    upon and the principles mentioned above.       In my view,   in view of <\/p>\n
    O.XIX   R.1     CPC       and   in   view   of   the   observations     made   in     Holya <\/p>\n
    Mahale’s case (supra),  it  was necessary for the learned   Ad-hoc District <\/p>\n
    Judge- 3   Nagpur  to call upon the parties to file affidavit  or,  at least, to <\/p>\n
    record their oral evidence instead of adopting   a  pedantic approach of <\/p>\n
    refusing to condone   delay in the   facts and circumstances of the case.\n<\/p>\n
    Therefore, the question nos. 1  and  2     posed above must be answered <\/p>\n
    in   the   negative.   The   learned   Ad-hoc     District   Judge-3     Nagpur     can <\/p>\n
    decide the application on the basis of affidavit filed or, on the basis of <\/p>\n
    oral evidence adduced by the parties,  which is  required to be  recorded <\/p>\n
    in order to pass final order below application for condonation of delay so <\/p>\n
    as to ensure its just and   final disposal in accordance with law, in the <\/p>\n
    facts and circumstances of the present case.  Hence the following order :\n<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:01:13 :::<\/span>
\n                                         8<\/span><\/p>\n
               The Second  appeal is allowed. The impugned   order  dated <\/p>\n
    28.1.2008   passed by learned   Ad-hoc District Judge-3,   Nagpur       is <\/p>\n
    hereby  set aside.   Misc. Civil Application No.207\/2007 is  remanded to <\/p>\n
    the Court of District Judge  Nagpur  for final disposal in accordance with <\/p>\n
    law, bearing in mind the observations made  above.   Respective parties <\/p>\n
    to cooperate  with learned  Judge of the Court below for early disposal of <\/p>\n
    the Application.    Second Appeal is disposed of accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                     JUDGE<\/p>\n
    sahare<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:01:13 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Amar Singh vs Raghunath Holya Mahale on 16 June, 2010 Bench: A.P. Bhangale 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR. SECOND APPEAL NO. 11\/2010 Amar Singh s\/o Harisingh Thakur Aged about 65 years occu: Business R\/o Plot No. 368 Shrinagar, Nagpur. … …APPELLANT v e r […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-70644","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAmar Singh vs Raghunath Holya Mahale on 16 June, 2010 - 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\/amar-singh-vs-raghunath-holya-mahale-on-16-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Amar Singh vs Raghunath Holya Mahale on 16 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-singh-vs-raghunath-holya-mahale-on-16-june-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-06-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-21T20:13:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amar-singh-vs-raghunath-holya-mahale-on-16-june-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amar-singh-vs-raghunath-holya-mahale-on-16-june-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Amar Singh vs Raghunath Holya Mahale on 16 June, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-21T20:13:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amar-singh-vs-raghunath-holya-mahale-on-16-june-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1450,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amar-singh-vs-raghunath-holya-mahale-on-16-june-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amar-singh-vs-raghunath-holya-mahale-on-16-june-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amar-singh-vs-raghunath-holya-mahale-on-16-june-2010\",\"name\":\"Amar Singh vs Raghunath Holya Mahale on 16 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-21T20:13:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amar-singh-vs-raghunath-holya-mahale-on-16-june-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amar-singh-vs-raghunath-holya-mahale-on-16-june-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amar-singh-vs-raghunath-holya-mahale-on-16-june-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Amar Singh vs Raghunath Holya Mahale on 16 June, 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":"Amar Singh vs Raghunath Holya Mahale on 16 June, 2010 - 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\/amar-singh-vs-raghunath-holya-mahale-on-16-june-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Amar Singh vs Raghunath Holya Mahale on 16 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-singh-vs-raghunath-holya-mahale-on-16-june-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-06-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-21T20:13:24+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-singh-vs-raghunath-holya-mahale-on-16-june-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-singh-vs-raghunath-holya-mahale-on-16-june-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Amar Singh vs Raghunath Holya Mahale on 16 June, 2010","datePublished":"2010-06-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-21T20:13:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-singh-vs-raghunath-holya-mahale-on-16-june-2010"},"wordCount":1450,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-singh-vs-raghunath-holya-mahale-on-16-june-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-singh-vs-raghunath-holya-mahale-on-16-june-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-singh-vs-raghunath-holya-mahale-on-16-june-2010","name":"Amar Singh vs Raghunath Holya Mahale on 16 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-06-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-21T20:13:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-singh-vs-raghunath-holya-mahale-on-16-june-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-singh-vs-raghunath-holya-mahale-on-16-june-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-singh-vs-raghunath-holya-mahale-on-16-june-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Amar Singh vs Raghunath Holya Mahale on 16 June, 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\/70644","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=70644"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70644\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=70644"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=70644"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=70644"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}