{"id":85813,"date":"1986-11-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1986-11-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-chander-manchanda-and-anr-vs-smt-janki-manchanda-on-18-november-1986"},"modified":"2017-04-07T12:18:44","modified_gmt":"2017-04-07T06:48:44","slug":"prakash-chander-manchanda-and-anr-vs-smt-janki-manchanda-on-18-november-1986","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-chander-manchanda-and-anr-vs-smt-janki-manchanda-on-18-november-1986","title":{"rendered":"Prakash Chander Manchanda And Anr vs Smt. Janki Manchanda on 18 November, 1986"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Prakash Chander Manchanda And Anr vs Smt. Janki Manchanda on 18 November, 1986<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR   42, \t\t  1987 SCR  (1) 288<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: G Oza<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Oza, G.L. (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nPRAKASH CHANDER MANCHANDA AND ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSMT. JANKI MANCHANDA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT18\/11\/1986\n\nBENCH:\nOZA, G.L. (J)\nBENCH:\nOZA, G.L. (J)\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1987 AIR   42\t\t  1987 SCR  (1) 288\n 1986 SCC  (4) 699\t  JT 1986   889\n 1986 SCALE  (2)844\n\n\nACT:\n    Civil procedure Code, 1908--Order 9 Rule 13 and Order 17\nRule  2 and 3--Plaintiff's evidence  over--Defendant's\tevi-\ndence to begin-Neither defence witnesses nor any one present\non   behalf  of\t defendant-Procedure  to  be   followed\t  by\nCourt--Ex-parte decree--Setting aside of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    In\ta suit in which the appellant was  defendant,  after\nthe  plaintiff's  evidence was over, the  defendant  was  to\nbegin his evidence on 24th January, 1985. As no witness\t was\npresent, at the request of defendant's counsel the case\t was\nadjourned to 7th May, 1985. On that day, the case was trans-\nferred to another Court and the transferee Court ordered the\ncase to be put up on 21st August, 1985. It being a  holiday,\nthe  case  was put up on 22nd August, 1985 when it  was\t ad-\njourned\t to  30th  October, 1985. On that day,\tno  one\t was\npresent for the defendant. The case was again taken up at  1\np.m. but the situation remained the same. Since none of\t the\nwitnesses  for\tdefendant  was also  present,  evidence\t was\nclosed\tand case fixed for arguments for 1st November  1985.\nOn this date also nobody appeared for the defendant and\t the\ncase  was  adjourned  to 8th November, 1985.  On  that\tday,\narguments of the plaintiff's counsel were heard and as\tnone\nwas  present for defendant, the case was fixed for  judgment\non 11th November, 1985. On this date also nobody was present\nfor defendant and since judgment was not ready it was  post-\nponed to 21st November, 1985. On this date the judgment\t was\ndictated, pronounced and decree was ordered to be prepared.\n    The defendant filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13\nof  the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for setting aside\t ex-\nparte  decree  urging that he came to know about  decree  on\n18th  January, 1986 when the plaintiff came to take  posses-\nsion. The trial Court dismissed the application holding that\nit was not maintainable because the case was disposed of not\nin  accordance with Order 17 Rule 2, but in accordance\twith\nOrder  17  Rule 3. An application for review was  also\tdis-\nmissed by the Trial Court. The first appeal too was summari-\nly dismissed by the High Court.\nAllowing the appeal,\n289\n    Held: 1. The order passed by the High Court and also the\ntrial Court rejecting the application of the appellant under\nOrder  9  Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908  are\t set\naside  and  the trial Court is directed to  dispose  of\t the\napplication in accordance with law. [294C]\n    2.\tIn cases where a party is absent, only course is  as\nmentioned  in  Order 17(3)(b) to proceed under Rule  2.\t The\nlanguage of amended Rule 2 also lays down that if any one of\nthe  parties  fails to appear, the Court has to\t proceed  to\ndispose of the suit in one of the modes directed under Order\n9. The Explanation to Rule 2 gives a discretion to the Court\nto  proceed under Rule 3 even if a party is absent but\tthat\ndiscretion  is limited only in case where a party  which  is\nabsent\thas  led some evidence or has  examined\t substantial\npart  of their evidence. Therefore, if on a date fixed,\t one\nof the parties remains absent and for that party no evidence\nhas been examined upto that date the court has no option but\nto proceed to dispose of the matter in accordance with Order\n17  Rule 2 in any one of the modes prescribed under Order  9\nof  the\t Code of Civil Procedure. After\t this  amendment  in\nOrder  17 Rules 2 and 3 in 1976 there remains no doubt,\t and\ntherefore,  there  is  no possibility  of  any\tcontroversy.\n[292H-293C]\n    3.\tIn the present case, on 30th October 1985  when\t the\ncase  was called nobody was present for the  defendant,\t and\ntill  that date the plaintiff's evidence had  been  recorded\nbut  no evidence for defendant was recorded.  The  defendant\nwas  only to begin on this date or an earlier date when\t the\ncase  was adjourned. It is, therefore, clear that upto\t30th\nOctober 1985 when the trial Court closed the case of defend-\nant  there was no evidence on record on his  behalf.  There-\nfore, the Explanation to Order 17 Rule 2 was not  applicable\nat  all. Apparently when the defendant was absent  Order  17\nRule 2 only permitted the Court to proceed to dispose of the\nmatter\tin  any\t one of the modes provided  under  Order  9.\n[293D-E]\n    4.\tOrder 17 Rule 3 as it stands was not  applicable  to\nthe  facts of this case as admittedly on the date  when\t the\nevidence of the defendant was closed nobody appeared for the\ndefendant  and,\t therefore, the Court when it  proceeded  to\ndispose\t of the suit on merits had committed an error.\tEven\non  the review application, the trial Court went on  in\t the\ncontroversy  about  Order  17 Rules 2 and  3  which  existed\nbefore the amendment and rejected the review application and\non  appeal, the High Court also unfortunately dismissed\t the\nappeal in limine by one word. [293F-G]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>    CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2847  of<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">1986<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">290<\/span><br \/>\n    From the Judgment and Order dated 1.8.1986 of the  Delhi<br \/>\nHigh Court in F.A.O. No. 146 of 1986.\n<\/p>\n<p>Soli  J.  Sorabjee, E.C. Agarwala and Lalit for\t the  Appel-<br \/>\nlants.\n<\/p>\n<p>    T.S.K. Iyer, B.P. Maheshwari, V.N. Ganpule, S.K. Agniho-<br \/>\ntri and J. Singh for the Respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n    OZA, J. This appeal arises as a result of leave  granted<br \/>\nby  this  Court against the summary dismissal of  the  first<br \/>\nappeal by the appellant before the High Court of Delhi.\t The<br \/>\nfirst appeal was filed against an order passed by Sub  Judge<br \/>\n1st Class, Delhi rejecting the review petition filed by\t the<br \/>\npetitioner.  The facts necessary for disposal of  this\tcase<br \/>\nare  that in a suit filed against the present  appellant  in<br \/>\nthe Court of Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi when the matter\t was<br \/>\nfixed  for  evidence  of the defendant\tas  the\t plaintiff&#8217;s<br \/>\nevidence was over and defendant-present appellant&#8217;s evidence<br \/>\nwas  to\t begin when the case was taken up on  24th  January,<br \/>\n1985.  The  order-sheet\t of the Court shows that  no  DW  is<br \/>\npresent\t and at the request of the counsel of the  defendant<br \/>\nthe  case was adjourned to 7th May, 1985. It is stated\tthat<br \/>\non  this date for some reason, the. case was transferred  to<br \/>\nanother\t board and in the transferee court, the\t order-sheet<br \/>\nshowed\tpresence of the counsel for parties and\t it  further<br \/>\nshows  that  as\t the case was received on  transfer  it\t was<br \/>\nordered to be put up on 21st August, 1985.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Learned  counsel for the appellant disputed the  mention<br \/>\nin  these proceedings about the presence of the\t counsel  of<br \/>\nthe defendantappellant. But in any event as it is not impor-<br \/>\ntant for the decision of this appeal it is not necessary  to<br \/>\ngo into that question.\n<\/p>\n<p>    On 21st, August, 1985 it appears that there was a  holi-<br \/>\nday  and  therefore the case was put up before\tthe  learned<br \/>\nJudge  on  22nd August, 1985 and it was\t postponed  to\t30th<br \/>\nOctober,  1985\tfor the evidence of the defendant.  On\t30th<br \/>\nOctober,  1985 the order-sheet showed that the\tcounsel\t for<br \/>\nplaintiff was present but no one was present for the defend-<br \/>\nant. The Court therefore directed the case to be taken up at<br \/>\n1 P.M. At 1 P.M. again the situation remained the same as it<br \/>\nis  clear from the order-sheet. It also shows that  none  of<br \/>\nthe  witnesses for defendant was also present and  therefore<br \/>\nthe  Court passed the order: &#8220;the case was called  but\tnone<br \/>\nhas appeared on behalf of the defendant and no DWs  present.<br \/>\nThe evidence of defendant closed.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">291<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Now  to come up for arguments.&#8221; The next date fixed was\t 1st<br \/>\nNovember,  1985. On this date also nobody appeared  for\t the<br \/>\ndefendant  and\tcounsel for the plaintiff  who\twas  present<br \/>\nsought adjournment and the case was adjourned to 8th  Novem-<br \/>\nber, 1985. On 8th November, 1985 arguments of the plaintiffs<br \/>\ncounsel were heard and as none was present for the defendant<br \/>\nthe  case was fixed for judgment on 11th November, 1985.  On<br \/>\nthis date also counsel for the plaintiff was present. Nobody<br \/>\nwas present for the defendant and order-sheet shows that  as<br \/>\njudgment  was not ready it was postponed to  21st  November,<br \/>\n1985.  On 21st November, the judgment was dictated and\tpro-<br \/>\nnounced\t and  the order-sheet also shows  that\tthe  learned<br \/>\nJudge  ordered decree to be prepared. It appears that  after<br \/>\nthis the defendant claimed that they came to know about\t the<br \/>\ndecree\ton 18th January, 1986 as on that day  the  plaintiff<br \/>\ncame  to take possession and therefore filed an\t application<br \/>\nunder  Order 9 Rule 13 for setting aside the exparte  decree<br \/>\nwhich was dismissed by the trial court holding that the case<br \/>\nwas  disposed of not in accordance with Order 17 Rule 2\t but<br \/>\nin accordance with Order 17 Rule 3 and therefore the  appli-<br \/>\ncation under Order 9 Rule 13 was not maintainable.<br \/>\n    The appellant-defendant thereafter filed an\t application<br \/>\nfor  review but that application also was dismissed  by\t the<br \/>\ntrial  court. Thereafter the first appeal Was  filed  before<br \/>\nthe High Court of Delhi which was dismissed summarily by the<br \/>\nimpugned order.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Learned  counsel  for parties submitted  at\t length\t the<br \/>\ncontroversy  that  existed before the amendment of  Code  of<br \/>\nCivil Procedure in 1976 about the interpretation of Order 17<br \/>\nRule 2 and Order 17 Rule 3. Apparently there were two views.<br \/>\none was that Order 17 Rule 3 could be used for deciding\t the<br \/>\nmatter\ton merits if the party is present but has failed  to<br \/>\ndo what was expected of that party to do and this rule could<br \/>\nnot  be\t used against a party who was  present\twhereas\t the<br \/>\nother view was that even if a party is absent but has failed<br \/>\nto do what was expected of him then it was the discretion of<br \/>\nthe  Court either to proceed under Order 17 Rule 2 or  under<br \/>\nOrder 17 Rule 3.\n<\/p>\n<p>    In\tsome  decisions, the High Courts have  gone  to\t the<br \/>\nextent\tof saying that even if the trail court\tdisposes  of<br \/>\nthe  matter as if it was disposing it on merits under  Order<br \/>\n17  Rule 3 still if the party against whom the decision\t was<br \/>\npronounced  was absent it could not be treated to be a\tdis-<br \/>\nposal  in accordance with Order 17 Rule 3 and provisions  of<br \/>\nOrder 9 will be available to such a party either for  resto-<br \/>\nration\tor  for\t setting aside an  exparte  decree.  Learned<br \/>\ncounsel placed before us a<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">292<\/span><br \/>\nnumber of decisions of various High Courts on this aspect of<br \/>\nthe  matter. But in our opinion in view of the amendment  to<br \/>\nthese  two rules which have been made by 1976  amendment  of<br \/>\nthe  Code of Civil Procedure it is not disputed that to\t the<br \/>\nfacts of this case, Code of Civil Procedure as amended\twill<br \/>\nbe applicable and therefore it is not necessary for us to go<br \/>\ninto  that question. Order 17 Rule 2 and Rule 3 as they\t now<br \/>\nstand reads:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;Order  17, Rule 2: Procedure if parties\tfail<br \/>\n\t      to appear on day fixed:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t\t Where,\t on  any day  to  which\t the<br \/>\n\t      beating of the suit is adjourned, the  parties<br \/>\n\t      or  any of them fail to appear, the Court\t may<br \/>\n\t      proceed  to dispose of the suit in one of\t the<br \/>\n\t      modes  directed in that behalf of Order IX  or<br \/>\n\t      make such other order as it thinks fit.<br \/>\n\t\t      (Explanation&#8211;Where the evidence or  a<br \/>\n\t      substantial\t  portion of the evidence of<br \/>\n\t      any  party has already been recorded and\tsuch<br \/>\n\t      party  fails  to appear on any  day  to  which<br \/>\n\t      the  hearing  of the suit\t is  adjourned,\t the<br \/>\n\t      Court may, in its\t\t  discretion proceed<br \/>\n\t      with   the   case\t as  if\t such\tparty\twere<br \/>\n\t      present.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      Order  17 Rule 3: Court may  proceed  notwith-<br \/>\n\t      standing\teither party fails to  produce\tevi-<br \/>\n\t      dence, etc.<br \/>\n\t\t\tWhere  any party to a suit  to\twhom<br \/>\n\t      time  has\t been granted fails to\tproduce\t his<br \/>\n\t      evidence,\t or to cause the attendance  of\t his<br \/>\n\t      witnesses, or to perform any other act  neces-<br \/>\n\t      sary to the further progress of the suit,\t for<br \/>\n\t      which  time has been allowed, the\t Court\tmay,<br \/>\n\t      notwithstanding, such default,&#8211;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (a)  if  the parties are present,\t proceed  to<br \/>\n\t      decide the suit forthwith, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (b)  if  the parties are, or any\tof  them  is<br \/>\n\t      absent, proceed under Rule 2.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>It  is\tclear  that in cases where a party  is\tabsent\tonly<br \/>\ncourse\tis as mentioned in Order 17(3)(b) to  proceed  under<br \/>\nRule 2. It is therefore clear that in absence of the defend-<br \/>\nant, the Court had no option but to<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">293<\/span><br \/>\nproceed\t under Rule 2, Similarly the language of Rule  2  as<br \/>\nnow  stands  also clearly lays down that if any one  of\t the<br \/>\nparties fail to appear, the Court has to proceed to  dispose<br \/>\nof the suit in one of the modes directed under Order 9.\t The<br \/>\nexplanation  to\t Rule 2 gives a discretion to the  Court  to<br \/>\nproceed\t under\tRule 3 even if a party is  absent  but\tthat<br \/>\ndiscretion  is limited only in cases where a party which  is<br \/>\nabsent\thas  led some evidence or has  examined\t substantial<br \/>\npart  of their evidence. It is therefore clear that if on  a<br \/>\ndate  fixed, one of the parties remain absent and  for\tthat<br \/>\nparty no evidence has been examined upto that date the Court<br \/>\nhas  no\t option but to proceed to dispose of the  matter  in<br \/>\naccordance  with  Order 17 Rule 2 in any one  of  the  modes<br \/>\nprescribed under Order 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.  It<br \/>\nis  therefore  clear that after this amendment in  Order  17<br \/>\nRules  2 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure there  remains<br \/>\nno  doubt and therefore there is no possibility of any\tcon-<br \/>\ntroversy.  In this view of the matter it is clear that\twhen<br \/>\nin  the present case on 30th October 1985 when the case\t was<br \/>\ncalled\tnobody\twas present for the defendant.\tIt  is\talso<br \/>\nclear  that till that date the plaintiffs evidence has\tbeen<br \/>\nrecorded  but  no evidence for defendant was  recorded.\t The<br \/>\ndefendant was only to begin on this date or an earlier\tdate<br \/>\nwhen the case was adjourned. It is therefore clear that upto<br \/>\nthe date i.e. 30th October, 1985 when the trial court closed<br \/>\nthe  case  of defendant there was no evidence on  record  on<br \/>\nbehalf\tof the defendant. In this view of the matter  there-<br \/>\nfore  the explanation to Order 17 Rule 2 was not  applicable<br \/>\nat  all. Apparently when the defendant was absent  Order  17<br \/>\nRule 2 only permitted the Court to proceed to dispose of the<br \/>\nmatter in any one of the modes provided under Order 9.<br \/>\n    It\tis also clear that Order 17 Rule 3 as it stands\t was<br \/>\nnot  applicable to the facts of this case as  admittedly  on<br \/>\nthe  date when the evidence of defendant was  closed  nobody<br \/>\nappeared  for the defendant. In this view of the  matter  it<br \/>\ncould  not&#8217;  be disputed that the Court\t when  proceeded  to<br \/>\ndispose of the suit on merits had committed an error. Unfor-<br \/>\ntunately  even on the review application, the learned  trial<br \/>\nCourt went on in the controversy about Order 17 Rules 2\t and<br \/>\n3 which existed before the amendment and rejected the review<br \/>\napplication and on appeal, the High Court also unfortunately<br \/>\ndismissed the appeal in limine by one word.<br \/>\n    The\t learned  counsel for the  respondent  attempted  to<br \/>\ncontend that in this view of law as it now stands an  appli-<br \/>\ncation\tunder Order 9 Rule 13 will be maintainable.  However<br \/>\nit was suggested that there was also an objection of limita-<br \/>\ntion about the acceptance of that applica-\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">294<\/span><\/p>\n<p>tion.  It is apparent that the learned trial Court  has\t not<br \/>\nconsidered  the application on merits but has only  rejected<br \/>\nit  as not maintainable and that order has been\t maintained.<br \/>\nThis objection of the learned counsel for the respondent  is<br \/>\nnot necessary for us to go into at this stage as in view  of<br \/>\nthe law discussed above, the order rejecting the application<br \/>\nas not-maintainable, has to be set aside and it will be open<br \/>\nto the learned trial Court to consider the application under<br \/>\nOrder  9 Rule 13 and dispose it of in accordance  with\tthat<br \/>\nlaw  and while so doing, it may even examine the  objections<br \/>\nthat may be raised by the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t appeal is therefore allowed with costs.  The  order<br \/>\npassed\tby Hon&#8217;ble the High Court and also the\ttrial  court<br \/>\nrejecting  the\tapplication of the appellant under  Order  9<br \/>\nRule  13  is set aside and it is directed that\tthe  learned<br \/>\ntrial court will proceed to hear and dispose of the applica-<br \/>\ntion under Order 9 Rule 13 filed by the appellant in accord-<br \/>\nance with law.\n<\/p>\n<pre>A.P.J.\t\t\t\t\t\tAppeal\t al-\nlowed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">295<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Prakash Chander Manchanda And Anr vs Smt. Janki Manchanda on 18 November, 1986 Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR 42, 1987 SCR (1) 288 Author: G Oza Bench: Oza, G.L. (J) PETITIONER: PRAKASH CHANDER MANCHANDA AND ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: SMT. JANKI MANCHANDA DATE OF JUDGMENT18\/11\/1986 BENCH: OZA, G.L. (J) BENCH: OZA, G.L. (J) [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-85813","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Prakash Chander Manchanda And Anr vs Smt. Janki Manchanda on 18 November, 1986 - 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\/prakash-chander-manchanda-and-anr-vs-smt-janki-manchanda-on-18-november-1986\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Prakash Chander Manchanda And Anr vs Smt. Janki Manchanda on 18 November, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-chander-manchanda-and-anr-vs-smt-janki-manchanda-on-18-november-1986\" \/>\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=\"1986-11-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-07T06:48:44+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prakash-chander-manchanda-and-anr-vs-smt-janki-manchanda-on-18-november-1986#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prakash-chander-manchanda-and-anr-vs-smt-janki-manchanda-on-18-november-1986\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Prakash Chander Manchanda And Anr vs Smt. Janki Manchanda on 18 November, 1986\",\"datePublished\":\"1986-11-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-07T06:48:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prakash-chander-manchanda-and-anr-vs-smt-janki-manchanda-on-18-november-1986\"},\"wordCount\":1914,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prakash-chander-manchanda-and-anr-vs-smt-janki-manchanda-on-18-november-1986#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prakash-chander-manchanda-and-anr-vs-smt-janki-manchanda-on-18-november-1986\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prakash-chander-manchanda-and-anr-vs-smt-janki-manchanda-on-18-november-1986\",\"name\":\"Prakash Chander Manchanda And Anr vs Smt. Janki Manchanda on 18 November, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1986-11-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-07T06:48:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prakash-chander-manchanda-and-anr-vs-smt-janki-manchanda-on-18-november-1986#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prakash-chander-manchanda-and-anr-vs-smt-janki-manchanda-on-18-november-1986\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prakash-chander-manchanda-and-anr-vs-smt-janki-manchanda-on-18-november-1986#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Prakash Chander Manchanda And Anr vs Smt. Janki Manchanda on 18 November, 1986\"}]},{\"@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":"Prakash Chander Manchanda And Anr vs Smt. Janki Manchanda on 18 November, 1986 - 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\/prakash-chander-manchanda-and-anr-vs-smt-janki-manchanda-on-18-november-1986","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Prakash Chander Manchanda And Anr vs Smt. Janki Manchanda on 18 November, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-chander-manchanda-and-anr-vs-smt-janki-manchanda-on-18-november-1986","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1986-11-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-07T06:48:44+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-chander-manchanda-and-anr-vs-smt-janki-manchanda-on-18-november-1986#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-chander-manchanda-and-anr-vs-smt-janki-manchanda-on-18-november-1986"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Prakash Chander Manchanda And Anr vs Smt. Janki Manchanda on 18 November, 1986","datePublished":"1986-11-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-07T06:48:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-chander-manchanda-and-anr-vs-smt-janki-manchanda-on-18-november-1986"},"wordCount":1914,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-chander-manchanda-and-anr-vs-smt-janki-manchanda-on-18-november-1986#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-chander-manchanda-and-anr-vs-smt-janki-manchanda-on-18-november-1986","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-chander-manchanda-and-anr-vs-smt-janki-manchanda-on-18-november-1986","name":"Prakash Chander Manchanda And Anr vs Smt. Janki Manchanda on 18 November, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1986-11-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-07T06:48:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-chander-manchanda-and-anr-vs-smt-janki-manchanda-on-18-november-1986#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-chander-manchanda-and-anr-vs-smt-janki-manchanda-on-18-november-1986"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-chander-manchanda-and-anr-vs-smt-janki-manchanda-on-18-november-1986#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Prakash Chander Manchanda And Anr vs Smt. Janki Manchanda on 18 November, 1986"}]},{"@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\/85813","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=85813"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/85813\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=85813"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=85813"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=85813"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}