{"id":85313,"date":"2008-07-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashokkumar-vs-samsuddin-on-21-july-2008-3"},"modified":"2016-12-11T03:27:34","modified_gmt":"2016-12-10T21:57:34","slug":"ashokkumar-vs-samsuddin-on-21-july-2008-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashokkumar-vs-samsuddin-on-21-july-2008-3","title":{"rendered":"Ashokkumar vs Samsuddin on 21 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ashokkumar vs Samsuddin on 21 July, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M.R. Shah,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/3072820\/2007\t 7\/ 7\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 30728 of 2007\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\nASHOKKUMAR\nVISHNUPRASAD SHARMA - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSAMSUDDIN\nIBRAHIMBHAI - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\nAppearance : \nMR\nMAYUR RAJGURU for Petitioner(s) : 1, \nMR DILIP\nK ANOJIYA for Respondent(s) :\n1, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 21\/07\/2008 \n\n \n\n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>1.\t\tBy<br \/>\nway of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India<br \/>\nthe petitioner has prayed for an appropriate Writ, direction and\/or<br \/>\norder to quash and set aside order below Exh.23 dated 01.11.2007 in<br \/>\nCivil Appeal No.62 of 2003 in Kirkul Application No.512 of 2001 in<br \/>\nObjection Application in Darkhast No.142 of 2001 and also to quash<br \/>\nand set aside Execution Petition No.142 of 2001 in HRP Suit No.2502<br \/>\nof 1991. It is further prayed to restore the possession of tenanted<br \/>\nsuit premises in favour of the petitioner as the petitioner is in<br \/>\npossession as on the day.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\t\tFacts<br \/>\nleading to the present Special Civil Application in nutshell as under<br \/>\n:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tThe<br \/>\nrespondent is original plaintiff   landlord and the judgment<br \/>\ncreditor. The petitioner is third party objector. That one Ramjas<br \/>\nMurlidhar was original tenant against whom respondent herein<br \/>\noriginal plaintiff instituted suit being HRP suit No.2502 of 1991 for<br \/>\ngetting disputed possession. That in the said Suit, original<br \/>\ndefendant filed written statement inter-ali stating that he does not<br \/>\nindent to transfer the suit premises to anybody. That suit was<br \/>\ndecreed on 06.04.1999. That the respondent   judgment creditor<br \/>\nfiled Execution Petition No.142 of 2001 for execution of decree<br \/>\npassed in HRP No.2502 of 1991 and at the time of execution the<br \/>\npetitioner submitted objections. It was contended on behalf of the<br \/>\npetitioner that the petitioner is in occupation and in possession of<br \/>\ndisputed property with knowledge of judgment creditor since 1997 and<br \/>\nas the petitioner was not party to the said suit i.e. HRP No.2502 of<br \/>\n1991,  said decree is not binding upon him. That the learned<br \/>\nExecuting Court on appreciation of evidence and considering<br \/>\nobjections submitted by the petitioner held that the petitioner has<br \/>\nfailed to prove any evidence that he was in possession of disputed<br \/>\nproperty as tenant with knowledge of judgment creditor.  So far as<br \/>\nreliance placed upon documentary evidence by the petitioner with<br \/>\nrespect to electricity connection in his name and licence obtained by<br \/>\nhim under the provisions of Bombay Shops and Establishment Act is<br \/>\nconcerned, the learned Executing Court held that said applications<br \/>\nwere submitted without signature of original landlord   judgment<br \/>\ncreditor and therefore, judgment creditor was not aware about<br \/>\nelectricity connection and licence obtained by the petitioner under<br \/>\nthe Bombay Shops and Establishment Act. Therefore, vide order dated<br \/>\n27.02.2003 learned Executing Court directed to proceed further with<br \/>\nthe Execution Petition No.142 of 2001 against the petitioner also by<br \/>\nholding that he is also bound by the decree. That being aggrieved and<br \/>\ndissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Executing Court<br \/>\ndated 27.02.2003 passed in Objection Application No.512 of 2001 the<br \/>\npetitioner preferred Civil Appeal No.62 of 2003 before the learned<br \/>\nAppellate Bench of Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad.  The learned<br \/>\nAppellate Bench of Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad by impugned order<br \/>\ndated 01.11.2007 dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by<br \/>\nthe learned Small Causes Court No.4, Ahmedabad. Being aggrieved and<br \/>\ndissatisfied with the both the aforesaid orders, the petitioner<br \/>\nthird party has preferred present Special Civil Application under<br \/>\nArticle 227 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\t\tMr.Mayur<br \/>\nRajguru, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has<br \/>\nvehemently submitted that both the Courts below have materially erred<br \/>\nin not accepting the objections submitted by the petitioner   third<br \/>\nparty. It is submitted that the petitioner was infact in possession<br \/>\nof the property on 06.10.1997 inducted by the erstwhile occupier and<br \/>\ntenant with the consent of the respondent landlord and since then the<br \/>\npetitioner was in possession of the occupation of the suit premises<br \/>\nand carrying out the business of petroleum products, both the Courts<br \/>\nbelow ought to have allowed the objection application submitted by<br \/>\nthe petitioner and ought to have held that decree is not binding to<br \/>\nthe petitioner and consequently ought not to have proceeded further<br \/>\nwith the Execution Petition. It is submitted that the petitioner had<br \/>\nobtained licence from the competent authority and also got proprietor<br \/>\nfirm registered and also obtained license under the provisions of the<br \/>\nBombay Shops and Establishment Act. Therefore, impugned order passed<br \/>\nby both the Courts below deserve to be quashed and set aside. It is<br \/>\nfurther submitted that the learned Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad has<br \/>\nfailed to appreciate and evaluate the evidence adduced by the<br \/>\npetitioner alongwith an application for objection in the Execution<br \/>\nPetition.   It is further submitted that even when decree was passed<br \/>\nthe petitioner was in possession of suit premises, therefore, any<br \/>\ndecree passed in the suit is not binding to the petitioner.<br \/>\nTherefore, it is requested to allow present Special Civil<br \/>\nApplication.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\t\tThe<br \/>\npetition is opposed by Mr.Dilip Kanojia, learned Advocate appearing<br \/>\nfor the respondent   landlord   judgment creditor.  It is<br \/>\nsubmitted that there are concurrent findings by both the Courts below<br \/>\non appreciation of evidence which do not call for interference of<br \/>\nthis Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the<br \/>\nConstitution of India.  It is submitted that admittedly the suit was<br \/>\nfiled against tenant   Ramjas Murlidhar and even as per the<br \/>\npetitioner he was in possession since 1997 who has taken possession<br \/>\nfrom said tenant and therefore, when it is the case on behalf of the<br \/>\npetitioner that he is in possession, after filing of the suit decree<br \/>\npassed in the said suit is binding to the petitioner. It is submitted<br \/>\nthat on appreciation of evidence, both the Courts below have<br \/>\nconcurrently found that the petitioner has miserably failed to prove<br \/>\nand\/or lead evidence that he is in possession with the knowledge and<br \/>\nwith consent of the judgment creditor.   It is further submitted that<br \/>\neven documents relied upon by the petitioner has been dealt with and<br \/>\nconsidered by both the Courts below. Therefore, it is requested to<br \/>\ndismiss present Special Civil Application.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\t\tHaving<br \/>\nheard the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective<br \/>\nparties and at the outset it is required to be noted that decree has<br \/>\nbeen passed in favour of respondent   landlord   judgment<br \/>\ncreditor.  Thus, Suit has been filed in the year 1991.  Admittedly,<br \/>\nit is the case on behalf of the petitioner that he is in occupation<br \/>\nof the suit premises since 1997, therefore, the petitioner is in<br \/>\npossession of suit premises after filing of the suit. It is the case<br \/>\non behalf of the petitioner that he was inducted as a tenant by the<br \/>\noriginal tenant and same was with the knowledge and consent of the<br \/>\njudgment creditor. Both the Courts below  have concurrently found on<br \/>\nappreciation of evidence that the petitioner has failed to prove that<br \/>\nhe was inducted as tenant by the original tenant with the knowledge<br \/>\nand consent of original tenant. Both the Courts below also took note<br \/>\nof the fact that Suit was filed in the year 1991 against original<br \/>\ntenant and written statement was filed by the original tenant that he<br \/>\nis not going to transfer and\/or alienate the premises in question.<br \/>\nStill possession has been handed over to the petitioner illegally. It<br \/>\nis also required to be noted that during HRP Suit No.2502 of 1991<br \/>\noriginal tenant did not disclose before the learned trial Court that<br \/>\nsome another person i.e. the petitioner is in possession of tenanted<br \/>\npremises. Therefore, when the petitioner was inducted as tenant by<br \/>\nthe original tenant during and pendency of the suit and decree has<br \/>\nbeen passed against the original tenant, said decree is binding to<br \/>\nthe petitioner. Both the Courts below have also considered<br \/>\ndocumentary evidences relied upon by the petitioner such as<br \/>\nelectricity connection in the name of the petitioner; licence issued<br \/>\nby the authority under the provisions of the Bombay Shops and<br \/>\nEstablishment Act and on appreciation of evidence both the Courts<br \/>\nbelow have observed and held that electricity connection as well as<br \/>\nlicence have been obtained by the petitioner without signature of<br \/>\noriginal landlord. Therefore, merely because the petitioner has<br \/>\nobtained electricity connection and\/or licence under the provisions<br \/>\nof the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act, it cannot be said that the<br \/>\npetitioner has been handed over the possession with the consent of<br \/>\nthe landlord. Decree has been passed which was sought to be executed<br \/>\nand from the prayer it appear that possession is already taken over<br \/>\nfrom the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner has prayed to<br \/>\nrestore possession back to him. Considering overall facts and<br \/>\ncircumstances, it cannot be said that both the Courts below have<br \/>\ncommitted any error in directing to proceed further with the<br \/>\nExecution Petition against the petitioner also and by holding that<br \/>\ndecree passed in HRP Suit No.2502 of 1991 is also binding to the<br \/>\npetitioner. No illegality has been committed by both the Courts below<br \/>\nwhich calls for interference of this Court in exercise of powers<br \/>\nunder Article 227 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\t\tIn<br \/>\nview of above and for the reasons stated above, the petition deserves<br \/>\nto be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. Notice discharged.\n<\/p>\n<p>[M.R.Shah,J.]<\/p>\n<p>satish<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Ashokkumar vs Samsuddin on 21 July, 2008 Author: M.R. Shah,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/3072820\/2007 7\/ 7 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 30728 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-85313","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Ashokkumar vs Samsuddin on 21 July, 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\/ashokkumar-vs-samsuddin-on-21-july-2008-3\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ashokkumar vs Samsuddin on 21 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashokkumar-vs-samsuddin-on-21-july-2008-3\" \/>\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=\"2008-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-10T21:57:34+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\\\/ashokkumar-vs-samsuddin-on-21-july-2008-3#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashokkumar-vs-samsuddin-on-21-july-2008-3\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ashokkumar vs Samsuddin on 21 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-10T21:57:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashokkumar-vs-samsuddin-on-21-july-2008-3\"},\"wordCount\":1471,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashokkumar-vs-samsuddin-on-21-july-2008-3#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashokkumar-vs-samsuddin-on-21-july-2008-3\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashokkumar-vs-samsuddin-on-21-july-2008-3\",\"name\":\"Ashokkumar vs Samsuddin on 21 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-10T21:57:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashokkumar-vs-samsuddin-on-21-july-2008-3#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashokkumar-vs-samsuddin-on-21-july-2008-3\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashokkumar-vs-samsuddin-on-21-july-2008-3#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ashokkumar vs Samsuddin on 21 July, 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":"Ashokkumar vs Samsuddin on 21 July, 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\/ashokkumar-vs-samsuddin-on-21-july-2008-3","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ashokkumar vs Samsuddin on 21 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashokkumar-vs-samsuddin-on-21-july-2008-3","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-10T21:57:34+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\/ashokkumar-vs-samsuddin-on-21-july-2008-3#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashokkumar-vs-samsuddin-on-21-july-2008-3"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ashokkumar vs Samsuddin on 21 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-10T21:57:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashokkumar-vs-samsuddin-on-21-july-2008-3"},"wordCount":1471,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashokkumar-vs-samsuddin-on-21-july-2008-3#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashokkumar-vs-samsuddin-on-21-july-2008-3","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashokkumar-vs-samsuddin-on-21-july-2008-3","name":"Ashokkumar vs Samsuddin on 21 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-10T21:57:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashokkumar-vs-samsuddin-on-21-july-2008-3#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashokkumar-vs-samsuddin-on-21-july-2008-3"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashokkumar-vs-samsuddin-on-21-july-2008-3#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ashokkumar vs Samsuddin on 21 July, 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\/85313","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=85313"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/85313\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=85313"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=85313"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=85313"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}