{"id":77307,"date":"2010-11-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/awadh-raj-singh-vs-the-state-of-m-p-ors-on-10-november-2010"},"modified":"2016-09-02T21:24:01","modified_gmt":"2016-09-02T15:54:01","slug":"awadh-raj-singh-vs-the-state-of-m-p-ors-on-10-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/awadh-raj-singh-vs-the-state-of-m-p-ors-on-10-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"Awadh Raj Singh vs The State Of M.P. & Ors on 10 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n
Awadh Raj Singh vs The State Of M.P. & Ors on 10 November, 2010<\/div>\n
                              (1)\n\n    HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR\n\n                    First Appeal No. 17\/1999\n\nAwadh Raj Singh, S\/o Shri Rameshwar Singh\naged about 57 years, Occupation Agriculturist\nand contractorship for Shri Rameshwar Singh\nS\/o Shri Mahadeo Singh aged about 80 years\nvillage Harrai, Tehsil Sirmour District Rewa.\n\n                                               Plaintiff\/Appellant\n                                    Vs.\n  1. State of M.P.\n     through Collector, Rewa\n     District Rewa (M.P.)\n     & another\n                                          Respondents\/Defendants\n\n_________________________________________________________________\n\nFor the Appellant       :Shri A.K.Pathak, Advocate.\n\nFor the respondents : Ku. Kamlesh Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer.\n\n                               Date of hearing : 09.11.2010\n\n                               Date of Judgment :\n\n                            JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
                    As Per : Hon’ble G.S.Solanki, J.\n<\/p>\n
   1.      Plaintiff\/appellant has preferred this appeal under<\/p>\n
        section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 being<\/p>\n
        aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 8.9.1998 passed<\/p>\n
        by Fourth Additional District Judge, Rewa in Civil Suit No.<\/p>\n
        11-A\/98,.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
   2.     The brief facts of the case are that plaintiff\/appellant<\/p>\n
        Awadh Raj Singh filed a suit for and on behalf of his father<\/p>\n
        Rameshwar Singh against respondents\/defendants for
\n                               (2)<\/span><\/p>\n
     damages of Rs. 42,550\/- including refund of security<\/p>\n
     deposit of Rs. 2200\/-.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.    As per the plaint, respondents invited tenders for<\/p>\n
     construction of temporary houses in village Budgawana,<\/p>\n
     Tehsil – Gobadbanas, District Sidhi under Bansagar<\/p>\n
     Project, Bansagar Colony, Rewa. In response to invitation<\/p>\n
     of this tender, plaintiff\/appellant submitted his tender on<\/p>\n
     24.2.1983 and deposited a sum of Rs. 2200\/- towards<\/p>\n
     security in Union Bank of India, Rewa. It has been further<\/p>\n
     pleaded that tender of Rameshwar Singh (father of<\/p>\n
     appellant) was finally accepted and contract agreement<\/p>\n
     was executed by him and Executive Engineer\/respondent<\/p>\n
     No. 2 on behalf of State.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.       As per the terms of agreement, the work was to be<\/p>\n
     completed within a period of three months, therefore, the<\/p>\n
     Executive Engineer was bound to give lay out of the<\/p>\n
     proposed    construction       immediately.   The   plaintiff\/<\/p>\n
     appellant made necessary preparation by spending a sum<\/p>\n
     of Rs. 26,000\/- for supply of building material and labours<\/p>\n
     in anticipation of lay out. The Executive Engineer did not<\/p>\n
     give lay out despite repeated demands, therefore, the<\/p>\n
     plaintiff\/appellant served a written notice on 3.8.1983 to<\/p>\n
     the Department requesting for lay out, so that the work<\/p>\n
     could be completed within the stipulated time.
\n                            (3)<\/span><\/p>\n
5.           It is further pleaded that respondent Department,<\/p>\n
     after lapse of 14 months on 7.7.1984, called upon the<\/p>\n
     plaintiff\/appellant to start the work. Since by that time the<\/p>\n
     costs    had   escalated    beyond   any   proportion,   the<\/p>\n
     Government of M.P. was not ready to sanction higher<\/p>\n
     rates. In these circumstances, the plaintiff\/appellant filed<\/p>\n
     a suit for damages after serving the notice under section<\/p>\n
     80 of the CPC on 1.2.1985 and 5.2.1985 for recovering the<\/p>\n
     amount of Rs. 42,200\/- including the security amount.<\/p>\n
6. The defendants\/respondents admitted the contents of the<\/p>\n
     plaint regarding tender agreement and pleaded that lay<\/p>\n
     out ought to have been supplied up to 20.7.1983 but due<\/p>\n
     to rainy season, it could not have been supplied to the<\/p>\n
     plaintiff\/appellant. But after end of the rainy season,<\/p>\n
     respondents informed the appellant vide letter dated<\/p>\n
     26.11.1983 to start the work and lay out is ready on the<\/p>\n
     spot but plaintiff\/appellant did not comply with the<\/p>\n
     direction given by the respondents and thereby damage<\/p>\n
     has been caused to respondents\/State. They have further<\/p>\n
     pleaded that plaintiff filed this false suit to avoid the<\/p>\n
     recovery of damages by respondents\/State.<\/p>\n
7. The trial Court on appraisal of evidence on record,<\/p>\n
     passed the impugned judgment and decree and dismissed<\/p>\n
     the suit holding that Awadh Raj Singh had not entered
\n                             (4)<\/span><\/p>\n
     into any contract, thus, he has no right to file the suit on<\/p>\n
     behalf of his father Rameshwar Singh. The trial Court also<\/p>\n
     held that suit is not maintainable for want of notice under<\/p>\n
     section 80 of the CPC. Being aggrieved thereby the<\/p>\n
     instant    appeal      has   been    preferred    by    the<\/p>\n
     appellant\/plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
8.    Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the<\/p>\n
     trial Court has erred in holding that Awadh Raj Singh had<\/p>\n
     not entered into any contract, thus, he has no right to file<\/p>\n
     the suit on behalf of his father Rameshwar Singh, as in<\/p>\n
     the cause title of the plaint, it has been clearly mentioned<\/p>\n
     that Awadh Raj Singh filed the suit as attorney for and on<\/p>\n
     behalf of his father Rameshwar Singh. Counsel has<\/p>\n
     further submitted that respondents did not object the<\/p>\n
     capacity of Awadh Raj Singh to file the suit on any ground<\/p>\n
     whatsoever, therefore, no inference against the plaintiff<\/p>\n
     could have been drawn for not filing the power of<\/p>\n
     attorney. He has further submitted that the pleading<\/p>\n
     regarding the notice under section 80 of the CPC was not<\/p>\n
     specifically denied by the respondents, thus, service of<\/p>\n
     notice under section 80 of the CPC was admitted fact and<\/p>\n
     suit could not be dismissed for want of notice under<\/p>\n
     section 80 of the CPC, hence impugned judgment and<\/p>\n
     decree passed by the trial Court be set aside and suit be<\/p>\n
     decreed with costs against the respondents.
\n                            (5)<\/span><\/p>\n
9.      On the other hand learned Panel Lawyer appearing on<\/p>\n
     behalf of respondents\/State has submitted that      the suit<\/p>\n
     was not properly framed. Awadh Raj Singh was not<\/p>\n
     authorized to file the suit on behalf of his father<\/p>\n
     Ramwshwar Singh. She has further submitted that Awadh<\/p>\n
     Raj Singh cannot depose in place and instead of principal<\/p>\n
     (Rameshwar Singh), thus Awadh Raj Singh has failed to<\/p>\n
     establish the execution of contract as well as service of<\/p>\n
     notice under section 80 of the CPC, therefore, the trial<\/p>\n
     Court rightly dismissed the suit.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10. I have perused the record of the trial Court, evidence<\/p>\n
     recorded and other material on record. It is true that<\/p>\n
     pleading in regard to notice under section 80 of the CPC<\/p>\n
     was not specifically denied, therefore, it amounts to an<\/p>\n
     admitted fact regarding notice under section 80 of the<\/p>\n
     CPC and in case the plaintiff\/appellant has failed to<\/p>\n
     exhibit the said notice on record, it cannot be said that<\/p>\n
     notice was not served on the respondents. In these<\/p>\n
     circumstances, the finding regarding the non service of<\/p>\n
     notice under section 80 of the CPC on respondents cannot<\/p>\n
     be said to be sustainable in the eyes of law.<\/p>\n
11.     Coming to the question whether Awadh Raj Singh is<\/p>\n
     entitled to file suit on behalf of his father Rameshwar<\/p>\n
     Singh or not; it is true that in the cause title of plaint it
\n                         (6)<\/span><\/p>\n
  was mentioned that     Awadh Raj Singh filed the suit on<\/p>\n
  behalf of his father Rameshwar Singh, but       Awadh Raj<\/p>\n
  Singh did not file any power of attorney along with the<\/p>\n
  suit, thus the suit was not properly framed and in the<\/p>\n
  absence of any power of attorney,       Awadh Raj Singh<\/p>\n
  cannot be said to be recognized agent of Rameshwar<\/p>\n
  Singh as provided under Order 3 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC.<\/p>\n
  It is also pertinent to mention here that Rameshwar Singh<\/p>\n
  had not entered into the witness box, only Awadh Raj<\/p>\n
  Singh deposed on behalf of his father Rameshwar Singh<\/p>\n
  regarding tender and execution of contract.<\/p>\n
12.   It is provided under Order 3 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC that a<\/p>\n
  holder of power of attorney can act on behalf of principal<\/p>\n
  but the term ‘act’ would not include deposing in place and<\/p>\n
  instead of principal. If the power of attorney holder has<\/p>\n
  rendered some acts in pursuance to power of attorney, he<\/p>\n
  may depose for the principal in respect of such acts but he<\/p>\n
  cannot depose for the principal for the acts done by the<\/p>\n
  principal and not by him. Similarly he cannot depose for<\/p>\n
  the principal in respect of matter of which only the<\/p>\n
  principal can have a personal knowledge and in respect of<\/p>\n
  which the principal is entitled to be cross-examined.<\/p>\n
13.       In the instant case, firstly there is no power of<\/p>\n
  attorney in favour of Awadh Raj Singh and secondly<\/p>\n
  Awadh Raj Singh cannot depose for his father Rameshwar
\n                                 (7)<\/span><\/p>\n
        Singh in respect of filing of tender and execution of<\/p>\n
        contract for which only Rameshwar Singh can have a<\/p>\n
        personal knowledge and only Rameshwar Singh is entitled<\/p>\n
        to be cross-examined. Further more,        Awadh Raj Singh<\/p>\n
        himself has admitted all these facts in Paras 10 and 11 of<\/p>\n
        his     cross   examination.   Further   Chhotelal    (PW-2),<\/p>\n
        Ramsumiran Vishwakarma (PW-3), Lalmani (PW-4) and<\/p>\n
        Ayodhya (PW-5) deposed in regard to Awadh Raj Singh.<\/p>\n
        None of them stated about principal plaintiff Rameshwar<\/p>\n
        Singh. In this way, plaintiff has utterly failed to prove his<\/p>\n
        case.\n<\/p>\n
     14.         In Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another Vs.<\/p>\n
        Indusind Bank Ltd. And others – AIR 2005 SC 439,<\/p>\n
        the Apex Court held that the power of attorney holder<\/p>\n
        cannot depose in place and instead of principal. The ratio<\/p>\n
        of the aforesaid case is fully applicable in the instant case.<\/p>\n
     15. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that the plaintiff has
\n        failed to prove his case. No case is made out to make
\n        interference in the judgment and decree passed by the
\n        trial Court. The appeal is liable to be dismissed, same is
\n        hereby dismissed. Plaintiff\/appellant to bear his own cost
\n        as well as cost of respondents. Advocate’s fee as per
\n        schedule or as per certificate (which is less).\n<\/p>\n
     16.      Decree be drawn accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
                                             (G.S.Solanki)
\n                                                 Judge<\/p>\n
PB\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court Awadh Raj Singh vs The State Of M.P. & Ors on 10 November, 2010 (1) HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR First Appeal No. 17\/1999 Awadh Raj Singh, S\/o Shri Rameshwar Singh aged about 57 years, Occupation Agriculturist and contractorship for Shri Rameshwar Singh S\/o Shri Mahadeo Singh aged about […]<\/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":[8,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-77307","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madhya-pradesh-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAwadh Raj Singh vs The State Of M.P. & Ors on 10 November, 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\/awadh-raj-singh-vs-the-state-of-m-p-ors-on-10-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Awadh Raj Singh vs The State Of M.P. & Ors on 10 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/awadh-raj-singh-vs-the-state-of-m-p-ors-on-10-november-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=\"2010-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-02T15:54:01+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\\\/awadh-raj-singh-vs-the-state-of-m-p-ors-on-10-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/awadh-raj-singh-vs-the-state-of-m-p-ors-on-10-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Awadh Raj Singh vs The State Of M.P. & Ors on 10 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-02T15:54:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/awadh-raj-singh-vs-the-state-of-m-p-ors-on-10-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1422,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madhya Pradesh High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/awadh-raj-singh-vs-the-state-of-m-p-ors-on-10-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/awadh-raj-singh-vs-the-state-of-m-p-ors-on-10-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/awadh-raj-singh-vs-the-state-of-m-p-ors-on-10-november-2010\",\"name\":\"Awadh Raj Singh vs The State Of M.P. & Ors on 10 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-02T15:54:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/awadh-raj-singh-vs-the-state-of-m-p-ors-on-10-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/awadh-raj-singh-vs-the-state-of-m-p-ors-on-10-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/awadh-raj-singh-vs-the-state-of-m-p-ors-on-10-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Awadh Raj Singh vs The State Of M.P. & Ors on 10 November, 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":"Awadh Raj Singh vs The State Of M.P. & Ors on 10 November, 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\/awadh-raj-singh-vs-the-state-of-m-p-ors-on-10-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Awadh Raj Singh vs The State Of M.P. & Ors on 10 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/awadh-raj-singh-vs-the-state-of-m-p-ors-on-10-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-02T15:54:01+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\/awadh-raj-singh-vs-the-state-of-m-p-ors-on-10-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/awadh-raj-singh-vs-the-state-of-m-p-ors-on-10-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Awadh Raj Singh vs The State Of M.P. & Ors on 10 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-02T15:54:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/awadh-raj-singh-vs-the-state-of-m-p-ors-on-10-november-2010"},"wordCount":1422,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madhya Pradesh High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/awadh-raj-singh-vs-the-state-of-m-p-ors-on-10-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/awadh-raj-singh-vs-the-state-of-m-p-ors-on-10-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/awadh-raj-singh-vs-the-state-of-m-p-ors-on-10-november-2010","name":"Awadh Raj Singh vs The State Of M.P. & Ors on 10 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-02T15:54:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/awadh-raj-singh-vs-the-state-of-m-p-ors-on-10-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/awadh-raj-singh-vs-the-state-of-m-p-ors-on-10-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/awadh-raj-singh-vs-the-state-of-m-p-ors-on-10-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Awadh Raj Singh vs The State Of M.P. & Ors on 10 November, 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\/77307","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=77307"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77307\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=77307"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=77307"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=77307"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}