{"id":88556,"date":"2008-08-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-kisan-tryambak-gaikwad-on-14-august-2008-2"},"modified":"2017-08-12T09:43:52","modified_gmt":"2017-08-12T04:13:52","slug":"whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-kisan-tryambak-gaikwad-on-14-august-2008-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-kisan-tryambak-gaikwad-on-14-august-2008-2","title":{"rendered":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs Kisan Tryambak Gaikwad on 14 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs Kisan Tryambak Gaikwad on 14 August, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Deshmukh<\/div>\n
                              (1)\n\n\n\n\n          SECOND APPEAL NO.1498 OF 2005 WITH\n          CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9720 OF 2005\n\n\n\n\n                                                                   \n                Date of decision:    14TH AUGUST, 2008\n\n\n\n\n                                          \n    For approval and signature.\n\n\n\n    THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE     S.B. DESHMUKH\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n    1.   Whether Reporters of Local Papers                }\n         may be allowed to see the Judgment?              }\n\n\n\n\n                                 \n    2.   To be referred to the Reporter or not            }\n\n    3.\n                    \n         Whether Their Lordships wish to see\n         the fair copy of the Judgment?\n                                                          }\n                                                          }\n                   \n    4.   Whether this case involves a substantial         }\n         question of law as to the interpretation         }\n         of the Constitution of India, 1950 or            }\n         any Order made thereunder?                       }\n\n    5.   Whether it is to be circulated to the            }\n      \n\n\n         Civil Judges?                                    }\n   \n\n\n\n    6.   Whether the case involves an important           }\n         question of law and whether a copy of            }\n         the Judgment should be sent to Mumbai,           }\n         Nagpur and Panaji offices?                       }\n\n\n\n\n\n      [A.S. Bhagwat]\n    Personal Assistant to\n    the Honourable Judge.\n\n\n\n\n\n                                           ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 13:42:04 :::\n                                     1\n\n\n\n\n         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                      \n          SECOND APPEAL NO.1498 OF 2005\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n    Mukund Ramchandra Kolapkar,\n    Age-52 years, Occ: Business,\n    R\/o-Ashvi Kh. Tq-Sangamner,\n    Dist-Ahmednagar.\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n                                .... APPELLANT.\n\n              VERSUS\n\n    1) Kisan Tryambak Gaikwad,\n       Age-48 years, Occ: Agril.\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n    2) Dnyandeo Murlidhar Gaikwad,\n                       \n       Age-47 years, Occ: Agril.\n\n         Both R\/o-Ashvi Kh. Tq-Sangamner,\n         Dist-Ahmednagar.\n                      \n                                  .... RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n                  WITH\n          CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9720 OF 2005\n      \n\n\n                              ...\n   \n\n\n\n               Mr.V.J. Dixit Senior Advocate for the\n               Appellant.\n               Mr. S.K. Shinde Advocate for the\n               Respondents.\n                            ...\n\n\n\n\n\n              CORAM:    S.B. DESHMUKH, J.\n<\/pre>\n
              DATE :   14TH   AUGUST, 2008.\n<\/p>\n
    ORAL JUDGMENT:\n<\/p>\n
    1.      Heard   learned Senior Advocate Mr.              Dixit<\/p>\n
    for Appellant and learned Advocate Mr.          Shinde who<\/p>\n
    appears for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:42:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                          2<\/span><\/p>\n
    2.       This Second Appeal is filed by the original<\/p>\n
    defendant          in Regular Civil Suit No.          129 of 2003.\n<\/p>\n
    The    parties,        hereinafter, are referred to                their<\/p>\n
    status       in     Regular    Civil Suit      No.129      of      2003.\n<\/p>\n
    Plaintiff’s          Regular   Civil Suit No.         129 of        2003<\/p>\n
    has been decreed by the trial court and defendant,<\/p>\n
    his    servants, agents, or anybody claiming through<\/p>\n
    him    are        permanently restrained from causing                the<\/p>\n
    obstructions          to   the peaceful possession            of     the<\/p>\n
    suit     property.         This     Judgment    and     decree       was<\/p>\n
    passed       by<\/p>\n
                        the trial court on 5\/4\/2004.              It     was<\/p>\n
    assailed          by the defendant by filing Regular Civil<\/p>\n
    Appeal       No.      35   of 2004.      The    First      Appellate<\/p>\n
    Court,       after     hearing the parties, dismissed                the<\/p>\n
    Appeal       filed     by the defendant vide its            Judgment<\/p>\n
    and    decree        passed    on    14\/6\/2005.       It    is      this<\/p>\n
    Judgment          and decree of the First Appellate                Court<\/p>\n
    is     challenged by the defendant\/ Appellant in this<\/p>\n
    Second Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
    3.       This Second Appeal was listed for admission<\/p>\n
    before       this Court and after hearing the               parties,<\/p>\n
    this     Court       has admitted the Appeal by its                Order<\/p>\n
    passed on 19\/1\/2006 on two points\/ grounds.                      These<\/p>\n
    are reproduced herein below:-\n<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:42:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  3<\/span><\/p>\n
              “(i)       Whether           the       trial   court       committed<\/p>\n
              error       in        not hearing R.C.S.                No.129\/2003<\/p>\n
              and R.C.S.             No.     130\/2003 together?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (ii) Whether it is a fit case to remand the<\/p>\n
              matter       to the trial Court for hearing both<\/p>\n
              the suits together?”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    4.        Since       the        Appeal is already admitted                     and<\/p>\n
    now   I    have        heard
\n                                ig      for          final   hearing,          I      am<\/p>\n
    restricting          this        Order       to     those     two      grounds\/<\/p>\n
    points on which this Court has admitted the Second<\/p>\n
    Appeal.         For        this reason, I am not adverting                        to<\/p>\n
    description of property and various contentions of<\/p>\n
    the parties.\n<\/p>\n
    5.        The        pleading of the party is material                          and<\/p>\n
    important        in civil proceedings.                   Term      ‘pleading’<\/p>\n
    is defined in Order VI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil<\/p>\n
    Procedure.            Plaint       shall          mean pleading          of     the<\/p>\n
    plaintiff            and        written          statement      shall          mean<\/p>\n
    pleading        of     the defendant.               Parties to the             Suit<\/p>\n
    are   expected             to     plead material            facts      and      not<\/p>\n
    evidence        as     provided in Order VI Rule 2                       of     the<\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:42:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                                4<\/span><\/p>\n
    Code     of     Civil           Procedure.       In a given       case       the<\/p>\n
    defendant may not be knowing certain circumstances<\/p>\n
    or facts.           In that contingency, such defendant and<\/p>\n
    even if plaintiff in a given case, is not aware of<\/p>\n
    some     circumstances in the case, such parties i.e.<\/p>\n
    plaintiff           and     defendant,          may    resort        to      the<\/p>\n
    interrogatories             provided           under Order 11         of     the<\/p>\n
    Code     of Civil Procedure.                   Notice of documents can<\/p>\n
    be     given,        if necessary and party possessing                       the<\/p>\n
    document        may be compelled to produce on record                           ,<\/p>\n
    with     the        aid     of the provisions of the                 Code      of<\/p>\n
    Civil<\/p>\n
                 Procedure and mechanism provided thereunder<\/p>\n
    and     by     the        orders of the          Civil    Court.           Thus,<\/p>\n
    parties        have        to     plead their case or           stance         in<\/p>\n
    their        pleadings.          It is this pleading which is to<\/p>\n
    be     supported by the parties while leading oral or<\/p>\n
    documentary           evidence.           Parties        cannot         travel<\/p>\n
    beyond        their pleadings.             Even if parties            adduced<\/p>\n
    oral         evidence           besides        their   pleadings,          such<\/p>\n
    evidence        cannot          be considered by the Courts                  and<\/p>\n
    Courts        have to ignore such evidence, which is not<\/p>\n
    in     consonance          with      the       pleadings.       In        short,<\/p>\n
    pleading        is        a foundation of the stance taken                     by<\/p>\n
    the     party in a Civil Suit.                   The pleadings of            the<\/p>\n
    party        also     is required to be considered                    by     the<\/p>\n
    trial        court        under     Order 14 of        the     Code        while<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:42:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                                5<\/span><\/p>\n
    framing the issues.                  The trial court has to settle<\/p>\n
    the     issues          and in view of the issues settled                      by<\/p>\n
    the     Court, parties are put on notice to lead                             the<\/p>\n
    evidence.           The       importance         of the    pleadings           is<\/p>\n
    considered by the Supreme Court (See
\n                                     See State Bank of<\/p>\n
    India        v\/s.       Mr.    S.N.       Goyal, 2008 A.I.R.            S.C.W.\n<\/p>\n
    Page No.4355).<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                                             \n    6.        The learned counsel Mr.                  Dixit, has invited\n\n    my    attention to the copy of the written statement\n\n\n\n\n                                                  \n    filed        by the defendant in Regular Civil Suit                          No.\n\n    129     of     2003.\n                               ig From    this copy      of        the    written\n\n    statement, Mr.            Dixit, has pointed out the fact of\n                             \n    pendency of Regular Civil Suit No.                        130 of 2003.\n\n\n\n    7.        After         denial       in    the    written       statement,\n      \n\n\n    defendant          has pleaded his own case i.e.                     purchase\n   \n\n\n\n    of    the property by the defendant.                      To    illustrate\n\n    the     property which is purchased by the defendant,\n\n\n\n\n\n    he    has annexed the copy of the rough sketch along\n\n    with the written statement.                    The property which is\n\n    purchased          by     the defendant, is shown               in      yellow\n\n    colours       in        the   map     annexed      with        the    written\n\n\n\n\n\n    statement.          It appears that the property purchased\n\n<\/pre>\n
    by the defendant is part of Gat No.6.                          Location of<\/p>\n
    the     property         purchased by the defendant is                     also<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:42:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                              6<\/span><\/p>\n
    specifically          shown       in   this rough        sketch\/         map.\n<\/p>\n
    Regarding          pendency of the Regular Civil Suit                      No.<\/p>\n
    130     of 2003 filed by the defendant, in                      paragraph<\/p>\n
    A-11 of the written statement, it is stated by the<\/p>\n
    defendant          that     the defendant has          filed        Regular<\/p>\n
    Civil       Suit     No.130       of     2003    in   the     Court        for<\/p>\n
    declaration          and cancellation of the sale deed                       of<\/p>\n
    the     present plaintiff.             In paragraph A-14 of                the<\/p>\n
    written       statement,          it is requested that              Regular<\/p>\n
    Civil       Suit     No.      129      of     2003    and    defendant’s<\/p>\n
    Regular       Civil        Suit    No.       130 of 2003      should         be<\/p>\n
    tried       together.\n<\/p>\n
                               ig It is also requested              that       the\n\n    Court       to take appropriate action for trying these\n                             \n    two     Suits together.            This written statement seems\n\n<\/pre>\n
    to have been filed on 10\/11\/2003.\n<\/p>\n
    8.        Mr.        Dixit,       learned        counsel        has      also<\/p>\n
    invited       my attention to the Memo of Appeal, which<\/p>\n
    is on record.             It is not in dispute that defendant<\/p>\n
    in    the     case        on hand, was appellant             before        the<\/p>\n
    First       Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No.<\/p>\n
    35    of 2004.        Ground No.          XXII in the Memo of              the<\/p>\n
    Appeal       filed by the defendant i.e.                 Regular Civil<\/p>\n
    Appeal No.          35 of 2004 reads thus:-\n<\/p>\n
              “The       pleading in the suit No.                130 of 2003<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:42:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                          7<\/span><\/p>\n
              was     not     considered by the       learned         lower<\/p>\n
              court along with the written statement.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    .         In paragraph 3 of the Memo of the Appeal of<\/p>\n
    Regular        Civil Appeal No.           35 of 2004 it has         been<\/p>\n
    stated by the appellant (defendant) that:\n<\/p>\n
              “the     present        appellant filed       Civil       Suit<\/p>\n
              bearing        No.      130 of 2003 before         the      2nd<\/p>\n
              Joint        Civil   Judge, J.D., Sangamner             along<\/p>\n
              with     an application for injunction against<\/p>\n
              the     present
\n                             ig    respondents       and       Bhadakwad<\/p>\n
              family.         The court was pleased to pass                 an<\/p>\n
              injunction        against the respondents not                 to<\/p>\n
              disturb        the   possession of appellant              over<\/p>\n
              Gat     No.     6\/2\/1.     On the same day, the suit<\/p>\n
              bearing        R.C.S.     No.    129 of 2003 was filed<\/p>\n
              by     the     present respondents against              which<\/p>\n
              this appeal is going to file.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    .         In     ground No.VI it has been stated by                   the<\/p>\n
    appellant        therein in Regular Civil Appeal No.                    35<\/p>\n
    of     2004     that the trial court ought to have                  held<\/p>\n
    that the present appellant had purchased 1 R land\/<\/p>\n
    plot     from     Namdeo       on   31\/12\/1985,        specifically<\/p>\n
    North-West        side of Gat No.6 under the head of Gat<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:42:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                          8<\/span><\/p>\n
    No.    6\/2\/1.        At the conclusion of ground No.                 VII,<\/p>\n
    it is stated by the appellant therein that:\n<\/p>\n
             “In      Suit No.        130\/2003, the boundaries are<\/p>\n
             going        to     correct      as     per        amendment<\/p>\n
             application.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    .        My     attention is also invited to ground No.<\/p>\n
    XVI    of the Memo of Appeal in Regular Civil Appeal<\/p>\n
    No.      35 of 2004 wherein statements have been made<\/p>\n
    regarding alleged conspiracy in between Namdeo and<\/p>\n
    Karbhari       (brothers
\n                               ig who were erstwhile            owner        of<\/p>\n
    entire land Gat No.           6).\n<\/p>\n
    9.       Mr.      Dixit, learned counsel fairly concedes<\/p>\n
    that     during       pendency of Regular Civil             Suit       No.<\/p>\n
    129    of 2003, trial court was not moved by                      filing<\/p>\n
    application         that Regular Civil Suit filed by                   the<\/p>\n
    defendant       is    pending in the same court and                  said<\/p>\n
    Suit to be heard along with Regular Civil Suit No.<\/p>\n
    129    of     2003.       It is not in dispute that             Regular<\/p>\n
    Civil Suit indisputably was filed on 31\/5\/2003 and<\/p>\n
    has    been disposed of \/ decided by the trial court<\/p>\n
    on 5\/4\/2004.         In the premise of these indisputable<\/p>\n
    facts,        now     I    will     proceed    to    consider          the<\/p>\n
    submission        and point\/ ground No.         (ii)        regarding<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:42:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                                9<\/span><\/p>\n
    remand of the matter.\n<\/p>\n
    10.         Apart         from other submissions, Mr.                        Dixit,<\/p>\n
    learned        counsel for the appellant has also                             urged<\/p>\n
    before me, to resort to Section 151 of the Code of<\/p>\n
    Civil        Procedure          for     remand of the             matter        i.e.<\/p>\n
    Regular        Civil Suit No.             129 of 2003.              He has also<\/p>\n
    addressed           the        Court on Section 105 of the                    Code.\n<\/p>\n
    It     is     well        settled       in law      that        powers          under<\/p>\n
    Section        151        of     the    Code are         not      separate          or<\/p>\n
    codified           powers       vested with the Courts.                      Powers<\/p>\n
    vested<\/p>\n
                  with the Civil Court are recognized                             under<\/p>\n
    Section        151        of     the Code.       This is          because,          in<\/p>\n
    certain circumstances there may not be a provision<\/p>\n
    under         the        provisions       of       the     Code        of       Civil<\/p>\n
    Procedure,           for       the     party     concerned.                In     the<\/p>\n
    absence            of      the         statutory         provision,              i.e.<\/p>\n
    provisions           under the Code of Civil Procedure                            and<\/p>\n
    in     the     interest of justice, Court can resort                                to<\/p>\n
    Section        151        of the Code.         I am       considering             the<\/p>\n
    submission           or point regarding remand of the                           case<\/p>\n
    from        the Appellate Court i.e.                High Court hearing<\/p>\n
    the     Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil<\/p>\n
    Procedure.              Look      to the Code of Civil                 Procedure<\/p>\n
    makes        it clear that Order 41 Rule 23 provides for<\/p>\n
    remand        of        the case.       It is provided, that                  where<\/p>\n
                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:42:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                                10<\/span><\/p>\n
    the      Court          from       whose       decree       any     appeal        is<\/p>\n
    preferred           has        disposed        of     the     suit       upon      a<\/p>\n
    preliminary         point          and the decree is reversed                     in<\/p>\n
    appeal, the Appellate Court may, if it thinks fit,<\/p>\n
    by     order remand the case, and may further                              direct<\/p>\n
    what issue or issues shall be tried in the case so<\/p>\n
    remanded,          and        shall send a copy of its                 judgment<\/p>\n
    and     order       to        the Court from          whose       decree        the<\/p>\n
    appeal     is preferred, with directions to                            re-admit<\/p>\n
    the suit under its original number in the register<\/p>\n
    of civil suits, and proceed to determine the suit;\n<\/p>\n
    and     the     evidence\n                                  ig   (if any) recorded              during        the\n\n<\/pre>\n
    original trial shall, subject all just exceptions.\n<\/p>\n
    This     power          is     thus, vested with            the        Appellate<\/p>\n
    Court.     Under this provision, it is important that<\/p>\n
    Suit     must have been disposed of upon                          preliminary<\/p>\n
    point     by       the        Court at the first            instance           i.e.<\/p>\n
    ordinarily          the        trial court.          Another         important<\/p>\n
    ingredient          is        reversal      of       decree       in     Appeal,<\/p>\n
    obviously          by        the   Appellate Court            and      in      such<\/p>\n
    contingency,             Appellate         Court, if thinks fit,                  by<\/p>\n
    order, remand the case.                    In the case on hand, such<\/p>\n
    exercise of power was not resorted to by the First<\/p>\n
    Appellate          Court        when     the        First     Appeal          under<\/p>\n
    Section       96        read       with Order 41 of the                Code     was<\/p>\n
    pending.            Now        this    provision            still       can       be<\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:42:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 11<\/span><\/p>\n
    considered             by this Court since High Court is also<\/p>\n
    the     Appellate             Court, though has to consider                  the<\/p>\n
    Second Appeal within the parameters of Section 100<\/p>\n
    of     the        Code.         In the case on hand, I            have       not<\/p>\n
    arrived           at        a conclusion that the       decree          passed<\/p>\n
    either        by        the     trial      court   or     by    the      First<\/p>\n
    Appellate              Court is to be reversed by this                  Court.\n<\/p>\n
    Considering             the     fact situation obtaining in                  the<\/p>\n
    case on hand, in my view, no case for remand under<\/p>\n
    Order 41 Rule 23 of the Code is established.\n<\/p>\n
    11.       Remand is also provided under Order 41 Rule<\/p>\n
    23     A of the Code.               Here it is provided, where the<\/p>\n
    Court from whose decree an appeal is preferred has<\/p>\n
    disposed               of     the   case      otherwise       than      on      a<\/p>\n
    preliminary             point, and the decree is reversed                      in<\/p>\n
    appeal and a re-trial is considered necessary, the<\/p>\n
    Appellate              Court shall have the same powers as                     it<\/p>\n
    has     under rule 23.              It is made clear that in this<\/p>\n
    Order        41        Rule 23 A of the Code, disposal of                    the<\/p>\n
    Suit     by        the trial court is not upon                 preliminary<\/p>\n
    point        but        is     otherwise than      on     a    preliminary<\/p>\n
    point.            However, I am not reversing the                   Judgment<\/p>\n
    and decree of the First Appellate Court, neither I<\/p>\n
    am inclined to direct retrial.\n<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:42:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 12<\/span><\/p>\n
    12.       While recording findings on this submission<\/p>\n
    or     point, I have also considered provisions                            laid<\/p>\n
    down under Section 99 of the Code.                       It is provided<\/p>\n
    under     Section 99 of the Code that no decree to be<\/p>\n
    reversed           or     modified        on account of        any      error,<\/p>\n
    defect        or    irregularity not affecting                  merits         or<\/p>\n
    jurisdiction.                 It     is     further     provided           under<\/p>\n
    Section        99        of the Code that no decree               shall        be<\/p>\n
    reversed        or        substantially varied, nor shall                    any<\/p>\n
    case     be        remanded,         in appeal on account             of     any<\/p>\n
    misjoinder<\/p>\n
                            (or non-joinder) of parties or                  causes<\/p>\n
    of     action or any error, defect or irregularity in<\/p>\n
    any     proceedings            in the suit, not          affecting           the<\/p>\n
    merits        of        the    case or the jurisdiction               of     the<\/p>\n
    Court.         I have perused the Judgments of the trial<\/p>\n
    court as well as First Appellate Court in-extenso.\n<\/p>\n
    Both      the           Courts      below        have   considered           the<\/p>\n
    voluminous oral as well as documentary evidence on<\/p>\n
    record.            Both       the courts are concurring               on     the<\/p>\n
    point     that the vendor of the defendant\/ appellant<\/p>\n
    is     not examined.               The trial court has recorded                 a<\/p>\n
    finding that the property which is alleged to have<\/p>\n
    been     purchased by the plaintiff, is                      sufficiently<\/p>\n
    identified\/             described         and     document      of      title\/<\/p>\n
    transfer           of     property        is on    record.        Location,<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:42:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                            13<\/span><\/p>\n
    boundaries          and description of the property in the<\/p>\n
    opinion        of       the    Courts below, which        is     subject<\/p>\n
    matter        of        Regular Civil Suit No.129 of 2003               and<\/p>\n
    130     of     2003 are different.            So far as remand            of<\/p>\n
    the case is concerned, it cannot be ordered on any<\/p>\n
    ground.            It     is also not submitted by parties                to<\/p>\n
    the     Appeal          that the Civil Court who has             decided<\/p>\n
    Regular        Civil Suit No.129 of 2003 was not                   having<\/p>\n
    jurisdiction             to    decide the Suit at the          relevant<\/p>\n
    time.         Therefore, there is no case for remand                      of<\/p>\n
    the matter even on the ground of jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
    13.       Remand          of the matter on the ground of                any<\/p>\n
    defect or irregularity has also been considered by<\/p>\n
    me.      While trying Regular Civil Suit No.                     129      of<\/p>\n
    2003     if Regular Civil Suit No.                130 of 2003 filed<\/p>\n
    by     the defendant was pending, it was the                     bounden<\/p>\n
    duty     of the litigant i.e.               defendant to move           the<\/p>\n
    Court        specifically        for hearing of the said              Suit<\/p>\n
    along        with       Regular Civil Suit No.        129 of        2003.\n<\/p>\n
    Mentioning          the pendency of Regular Civil Suit No.<\/p>\n
    130 of 2003 in the written statement in para A-14,<\/p>\n
    in     my view, is callous approach of the defendant.\n<\/p>\n
    It     appears          that    the   defendant     was    under        the<\/p>\n
    impression          that just he has to point out or plead<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:42:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                                14<\/span><\/p>\n
    pendency        of          Regular Civil Suit No.           130 of           2003<\/p>\n
    and     then        it       was for the Court to          pass          further<\/p>\n
    orders.            It       is   not     possible    to    approve             such<\/p>\n
    conduct        of the litigant in a Civil Court, in                            the<\/p>\n
    facts     and circumstances available in the case                               on<\/p>\n
    hand.         In        a    civil proceedings        conduct            of     the<\/p>\n
    litigant        always           needs to be considered from                   the<\/p>\n
    view     point of the other party or prejudice                            which<\/p>\n
    is likely to be caused to the other party.                               In the<\/p>\n
    case     on hand if plaintiff approached to the Civil<\/p>\n
    Court     by        filing Regular Civil Suit No.                     129       of<\/p>\n
    2003,<\/p>\n
              it is the duty of the Court to consider the<\/p>\n
    grievance           raised in accordance with the procedure<\/p>\n
    and provisions of the law.                      Only because defendant<\/p>\n
    has     filed           Suit     and pointed out in          the         written<\/p>\n
    statement,           the Court is not expected to keep                         the<\/p>\n
    Suit     of        the       plaintiff without hearing.                  In      my<\/p>\n
    view,     therefore,             such pleadings of few lines                    in<\/p>\n
    para     A-14,           cannot     be    now resorted         to        by     the<\/p>\n
    defendant seeking remand.\n<\/p>\n
    14.       Another important aspect is that Section 99<\/p>\n
    appears        in        the     Code at earlier point              of        time.\n<\/p>\n
    Objective           seems to be a caution to the                  Appellate<\/p>\n
    Courts.            It is because, Appellate Court only                         can<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:42:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                                15<\/span><\/p>\n
    order        remand of the case.                This Section 99 of the<\/p>\n
    Code,        therefore,          gives caution to the              Appellate<\/p>\n
    Court and specifies the grounds under which remand<\/p>\n
    can     be ordered by them.                Lis pending in the Civil<\/p>\n
    Court must be adjudicated upon by the Court within<\/p>\n
    the     reasonable time.             From this view point,                  Code<\/p>\n
    of     Civil          Procedure has suffered many                amendments<\/p>\n
    (Act No.46 of 1999 and Act No.                      22 of 2002).            Thus<\/p>\n
    provisions laid down under Order 41 Rule 23, 23 A,<\/p>\n
    have        to        be read and considered in the facts                     and<\/p>\n
    circumstances                obtaining in the case and read with<\/p>\n
    Section 99 of the Code.\n<\/p>\n
                                  ig          If these three provisions\n\n    and     fact situation available in the case on                             hand\n                                \n    is     considered,             in   my    view,     remand       cannot         be\n\n    ordered in the case on hand.\n      \n\n\n    15.         Mr.         Dixit,      learned counsel, as noted                   in\n   \n\n\n\n    foregoing             paragraphs, has resorted to Section 151\n\n    of     the        Code.        Since two        provisions       have       been\n\n\n\n\n\n    quoted        for remand i.e.             Order 41 Rule 23 and Rule\n\n    23     A,        in     my    view, it is        not   a    case       wherein\n\n<\/pre>\n
    inherent power can be exercised for remand.\n<\/p>\n
    16.         Pendency          of Regular Civil Suit No.                  130 of<\/p>\n
    2003        i.e.       Suit filed by the appellant\/ defendant<\/p>\n
    is     not        in     dispute.        I am told by       Mr.        Shinde,<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:42:04 :::<\/span>
\n                                             16<\/span><\/p>\n
    learned      counsel,       on instructions,            that       Regular<\/p>\n
    Civil      Suit     No.     130 of 2003 is still pending                    in<\/p>\n
    the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
    17.        For    the     reasons, in my view, this                  Second<\/p>\n
    Appeal      cannot        be allowed on Ground No.               (i)       and<\/p>\n
    (ii).\n<\/p>\n
    18.        Except       these two grounds, no other                  ground<\/p>\n
    is      urged      before        me.      This       Second        Appeal,<\/p>\n
    therefore,        being     devoid        of merit      needs        to     be<\/p>\n
    dismissed.<\/p>\n
\n                            \n                           \n    .          The    trial     court        seized with        hearing         of\n\n    Regular      Civil Suit No.             130 of 2003 to decide and\n      \n\n\n    dispose      of the Suit by the end of this year                          i.e.\n   \n\n\n\n    on    or    before 31\/12\/2008.               Parties to       co-operate\n\n    for early hearing.            No costs.\n\n\n\n\n\n    19.        Mr.      Shinde,        learned          counsel      for      the\n\n    respondents,         fairly concedes that when the                     Civil\n\n    Application         No.9720       of     2005 was      taken       up      for\n\n\n\n\n\n    hearing,          order     is     passed      by    this     Court         on\n\n    19\/1\/2006.          Execution          filed   by     the     respondent\n\n    decree      holder is pending in the Executing                       Court.\n\n\n\n\n                                                           ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 13:42:04 :::<\/span>\n                                           17<\/span>\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
    The stage was putting the Judgment Debtor in civil<\/p>\n
    prison     for     non     compliance of the            decree.          Mr.<\/p>\n
    Dixit,     learned       counsel seeks eight              weeks      time.\n<\/p>\n
    Mr.      Shinde, learned counsel submits that no case<\/p>\n
    for      suspension       of    the        order     is     made       out.\n<\/p>\n
    Considering        the   submissions         in my        view,      eight<\/p>\n
    weeks     time can be granted.             Order passed by             this<\/p>\n
    Court      in     Second       Appeal       today,        shall      stand<\/p>\n
    suspended        for eight weeks, meaning thereby decree<\/p>\n
    passed     by     the trial court in Regular Civil                     Suit<\/p>\n
    No.      129 of 2003 shall stand suspended for                       eight<\/p>\n
    weeks.\n<\/p>\n
    .         In     view    of    the disposal        of      the      Second<\/p>\n
    Appeal,        nothing survives in the Civil Application<\/p>\n
    and     therefore Civil Application is also                     disposed<\/p>\n
    of.\n<\/p>\n
    .         Certified copy is expedited.\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                   [S.B. DESHMUKH]\n\n                                                         JUDGE.\n\n    asb\/u\/sa1498.05\n\n\n\n\n                                                          ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 13:42:04 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs Kisan Tryambak Gaikwad on 14 August, 2008 Bench: S.B. Deshmukh (1) SECOND APPEAL NO.1498 OF 2005 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9720 OF 2005 Date of decision: 14TH AUGUST, 2008 For approval and signature. THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE S.B. DESHMUKH 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers } […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-88556","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nWhether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs Kisan Tryambak Gaikwad on 14 August, 2008 - 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\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-kisan-tryambak-gaikwad-on-14-august-2008-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs Kisan Tryambak Gaikwad on 14 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-kisan-tryambak-gaikwad-on-14-august-2008-2\" \/>\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=\"2008-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-12T04:13:52+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-kisan-tryambak-gaikwad-on-14-august-2008-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-kisan-tryambak-gaikwad-on-14-august-2008-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs Kisan Tryambak Gaikwad on 14 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-12T04:13:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-kisan-tryambak-gaikwad-on-14-august-2008-2\"},\"wordCount\":2712,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-kisan-tryambak-gaikwad-on-14-august-2008-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-kisan-tryambak-gaikwad-on-14-august-2008-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-kisan-tryambak-gaikwad-on-14-august-2008-2\",\"name\":\"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs Kisan Tryambak Gaikwad on 14 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-12T04:13:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-kisan-tryambak-gaikwad-on-14-august-2008-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-kisan-tryambak-gaikwad-on-14-august-2008-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-kisan-tryambak-gaikwad-on-14-august-2008-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs Kisan Tryambak Gaikwad on 14 August, 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":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs Kisan Tryambak Gaikwad on 14 August, 2008 - 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\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-kisan-tryambak-gaikwad-on-14-august-2008-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs Kisan Tryambak Gaikwad on 14 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-kisan-tryambak-gaikwad-on-14-august-2008-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-12T04:13:52+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-kisan-tryambak-gaikwad-on-14-august-2008-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-kisan-tryambak-gaikwad-on-14-august-2008-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs Kisan Tryambak Gaikwad on 14 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-12T04:13:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-kisan-tryambak-gaikwad-on-14-august-2008-2"},"wordCount":2712,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-kisan-tryambak-gaikwad-on-14-august-2008-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-kisan-tryambak-gaikwad-on-14-august-2008-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-kisan-tryambak-gaikwad-on-14-august-2008-2","name":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs Kisan Tryambak Gaikwad on 14 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-12T04:13:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-kisan-tryambak-gaikwad-on-14-august-2008-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-kisan-tryambak-gaikwad-on-14-august-2008-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-kisan-tryambak-gaikwad-on-14-august-2008-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs Kisan Tryambak Gaikwad on 14 August, 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\/88556","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=88556"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/88556\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=88556"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=88556"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=88556"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}