{"id":78487,"date":"2008-02-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-02-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cruise-vs-louis-ferdinando-on-27-february-2008"},"modified":"2017-08-29T23:36:54","modified_gmt":"2017-08-29T18:06:54","slug":"cruise-vs-louis-ferdinando-on-27-february-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cruise-vs-louis-ferdinando-on-27-february-2008","title":{"rendered":"Cruise vs Louis Ferdinando on 27 February, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Cruise vs Louis Ferdinando on 27 February, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED : 27\/02\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA\n\nC.R.P.(PD)No.133 of 2006\nand\nC.M.P.No.1057 of 2006\n\n1.Cruise\n2.Amalraj\n3.Anthonypitchai\n4.Murugesan\n5.Flanji\n6.Nicholas\n7.Francis\n8.Pootharasu\n9.Siltal\n10.Sabinal\n11.Minor Grissol\n12.Minor Hambilin\n13.Minor Russon\n14.Minor Eugene\n15.Nageswaran\t\t... Petitioners\/Respondents\/Plaintiffs\n\nVs\n\n1.Louis Ferdinando\n2.Kulandaichamy Ferdinando\n3.Michaeldoss Ferdinando\n4.Siriyapushpam\n5.Januaryas\n6.Sahayam\n7.Nepoleon\n8.Ennraj\n9.Regis\n10.Maduvurani\n11.Jessinthal\n12.Santhosh\n13.Enestin\n14.Gunasekaran\n15.Edison\n16.Esther\n17.Henry\n18.Innocent\n19.Liberty\n20.Kissinger\t\t... Respondents\/Petitioners\/Defendants\n\n\n\nPrayer\n\nPetition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as\nagainst the order dated 08.08.2005 in I.A.No.240 of 2004 in O.S.No.21 of 2001 on\nthe file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Rameswaram,\nRamanathapuram District.\n\n!For Petitioners  ... Mr.M.V.Venkataseshan\n\n^For Respondents  ... No appearance\n\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThis Civil Revision Petition is focussed as against the order dated<br \/>\n08.08.2005 in I.A.No.240 of 2004 in O.S.No.21 of 2001 on the file of the<br \/>\nDistrict Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Rameswaram, Ramanathapuram District.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. A re&#8217;sume&#8217; of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal<br \/>\nof this revision petition would run thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(i) The revision petitioners who are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.21 of 2001,<br \/>\non the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Rameswaram,<br \/>\nRamanathapuram District, during the pendency of the suit filed I.A.No.81 of 2002<br \/>\nfor appointment of a Commissioner to measure the suit property and note the<br \/>\nphysical features and submit report with sketch.  Thereupon, one Advocate<br \/>\nThiru.Ravikumar was appointed to carry out the said mission.  The Commissioner<br \/>\nvisited the suit property and submitted his report dated 30.06.2004 with sketch.<br \/>\nWhereupon, both sides filed objections.  However, I.A.No.81 of 2002 was closed<br \/>\nby the trial Court on the ground that both sides have not contested it further<br \/>\nand the trial commenced.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(ii) During trial, the defendants cross-examined the plaintiffs&#8217;<br \/>\nwitnesses.  While so, the defendants came forward with the new I.A.No.240 of<br \/>\n2004 for directing the same Advocate Commissioner to revisit the suit property<br \/>\nand measure the same and submit additional report with sketch; to that effect<br \/>\nthe trial Court passed interim order thereunder.  Whereupon, the Advocate<br \/>\nCommissioner visited the suit property once again, with the assistance of<br \/>\nSurveyor and other revenue officials and submitted his further report with<br \/>\nsketch on 11.07.2005.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(iii) Then, enquiry in the said I.A.No.240 of 2004 was taken up and both<br \/>\nsides contested it.  The trial Court after narrating what had happened earlier<br \/>\nin paragraph No.6, clearly and categorically observed that without the<br \/>\nplaintiffs proving in what manner, the earlier Commissioner&#8217;s reports and<br \/>\nsketches are wrong, they simply prayed for once again ordering the same<br \/>\nCommissioner to revisit the suit property and measure it and submit his report<br \/>\nand accordingly, the trial Court dismissed the said I.A.No.240 of 2004.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. Being aggrieved by the said order in I.A.No.240 of 2004, this Civil<br \/>\nRevision Petition has been filed  by the plaintiffs on the following main<br \/>\ngrounds among others:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe trial Court was not justified in ordering earlier the Commissioner to<br \/>\nonce again visit the suit property and submit his additional report.  It was not<br \/>\nopen for the trial Court to appoint the same Commissioner for the second time<br \/>\nwith certain missions as set out in the order dated 24.01.2005 of the trial<br \/>\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any infirmity in<br \/>\nthe order of the trial Court dated 08.08.2005?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners.  Despite printing the<br \/>\nname of the respondents, no one appeared.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. The nitty-gritty, the gist and kernel of the case is that the trial<br \/>\nCourt ordered appointment of the Commissioner at the request of the plaintiffs,<br \/>\nwhereas without any valid reason at the instance of the defendants, once again<br \/>\nthe same Advocate Commissioner was directed to visit the suit property and that<br \/>\nthe same Commissioner simply reiterated his earlier report.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. It is the grievance of the petitioners that second time, the same<br \/>\nAdvocate Commissioner should not have been ordered to visit the suit property.<br \/>\nI am at a loss to understand as to how the plaintiffs could agitate the said<br \/>\norder dated 24.01.2005 after the Commissioner in pursuance to that order<br \/>\nrevisited the suit property and submitted his report and the plaintiffs also<br \/>\nfiled objection to the second report.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. In such a case, the revision petitioners are not permitted to agitate<br \/>\nas against the order dated 24.01.2005, which directed the same Commissioner to<br \/>\nrevisit the suit property.  De hors that, even on merits, I am of the considered<br \/>\nopinion that earlier order dated 24.01.2005 is not vitiated for the reason that<br \/>\nduring trial, the trial Court felt that it was in the interest of both parties,<br \/>\nthe Commissioner should revisit the suit property and clarify certain positions.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. Appointing a fresh Commissioner is different from directing the same<br \/>\nCommissioner to revisit the suit property and clarify certain points.  As such,<br \/>\nthis case cannot be equated to a case where a fresh Commissioner is appointed<br \/>\nwithout setting aside the report of the earlier Advocate Commissioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. The trial Court in the impugned order dated 08.08.2005, at paragraph<br \/>\nNo.6, clearly and categorically highlighted that there is no point in ordering<br \/>\nfor the third time the same Commissioner to visit the suit property.  He<br \/>\nhighlighted that the plaintiffs are at liberty to adduce oral or documentary<br \/>\nevidence to prove his case and also to  point out what are all mistakes<br \/>\ncommitted by the Commissioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. As such, the trial Court has not finally decided anything warranting<br \/>\ninterference of this Court&#8217;s revisional jurisdiction.  Hence, I am of the<br \/>\nconsidered opinion that there is no infirmity in the order of the trial Court.<br \/>\nHowever, I make it clear as highlighted by the trial Court that the plaintiffs<br \/>\nare at liberty to adduce oral or documentary evidence in support of their case<br \/>\nand point out mistakes in the Commissioner&#8217;s reports as well as in the sketches.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. The learned Counsel for the petitioners in an extempore manner would<br \/>\nsubmit that since this is an old matter, direction may be given to the trial<br \/>\nCourt to dispose of the same within a stipulated period.  Accordingly, the trial<br \/>\nCourt is directed to dispose of the entire suit within a period of three months<br \/>\nfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of.<br \/>\nConsequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>rsb<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>The District Munsif cum<br \/>\nJudicial Magistrate,<br \/>\nRameswaram,<br \/>\nRamanathapuram District.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Cruise vs Louis Ferdinando on 27 February, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27\/02\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.R.P.(PD)No.133 of 2006 and C.M.P.No.1057 of 2006 1.Cruise 2.Amalraj 3.Anthonypitchai 4.Murugesan 5.Flanji 6.Nicholas 7.Francis 8.Pootharasu 9.Siltal 10.Sabinal 11.Minor Grissol 12.Minor Hambilin 13.Minor Russon 14.Minor Eugene 15.Nageswaran &#8230; Petitioners\/Respondents\/Plaintiffs [&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-78487","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>Cruise vs Louis Ferdinando on 27 February, 2008 - 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\/cruise-vs-louis-ferdinando-on-27-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Cruise vs Louis Ferdinando on 27 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cruise-vs-louis-ferdinando-on-27-february-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-02-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-29T18:06:54+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cruise-vs-louis-ferdinando-on-27-february-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cruise-vs-louis-ferdinando-on-27-february-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Cruise vs Louis Ferdinando on 27 February, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-29T18:06:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cruise-vs-louis-ferdinando-on-27-february-2008\"},\"wordCount\":954,\"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\\\/cruise-vs-louis-ferdinando-on-27-february-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cruise-vs-louis-ferdinando-on-27-february-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cruise-vs-louis-ferdinando-on-27-february-2008\",\"name\":\"Cruise vs Louis Ferdinando on 27 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-29T18:06:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cruise-vs-louis-ferdinando-on-27-february-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cruise-vs-louis-ferdinando-on-27-february-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cruise-vs-louis-ferdinando-on-27-february-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Cruise vs Louis Ferdinando on 27 February, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Cruise vs Louis Ferdinando on 27 February, 2008 - 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\/cruise-vs-louis-ferdinando-on-27-february-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Cruise vs Louis Ferdinando on 27 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cruise-vs-louis-ferdinando-on-27-february-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-02-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-29T18:06:54+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cruise-vs-louis-ferdinando-on-27-february-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cruise-vs-louis-ferdinando-on-27-february-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Cruise vs Louis Ferdinando on 27 February, 2008","datePublished":"2008-02-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-29T18:06:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cruise-vs-louis-ferdinando-on-27-february-2008"},"wordCount":954,"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\/cruise-vs-louis-ferdinando-on-27-february-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cruise-vs-louis-ferdinando-on-27-february-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cruise-vs-louis-ferdinando-on-27-february-2008","name":"Cruise vs Louis Ferdinando on 27 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-02-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-29T18:06:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cruise-vs-louis-ferdinando-on-27-february-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cruise-vs-louis-ferdinando-on-27-february-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cruise-vs-louis-ferdinando-on-27-february-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Cruise vs Louis Ferdinando on 27 February, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/78487","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=78487"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/78487\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=78487"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=78487"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=78487"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}