{"id":88717,"date":"2002-11-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-11-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogesh-prasad-soti-vs-ram-narayan-balti-baba-on-22-november-2002"},"modified":"2018-10-01T11:35:41","modified_gmt":"2018-10-01T06:05:41","slug":"yogesh-prasad-soti-vs-ram-narayan-balti-baba-on-22-november-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogesh-prasad-soti-vs-ram-narayan-balti-baba-on-22-november-2002","title":{"rendered":"Yogesh Prasad Soti vs Ram Narayan @ Balti Baba on 22 November, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Yogesh Prasad Soti vs Ram Narayan @ Balti Baba on 22 November, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 102 (2003) DLT 669, 2003 (67) DRJ 7, (2003) 134 PLR 29<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: C Mahajan<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: C Mahajan<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p> C.K. Mahajan, J. <\/p>\n<p> 1. This is an application under Section 5 of<br \/>\nthe Limitation Act for condensation of delay in filing<br \/>\nthe application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC.\n<\/p>\n<p> 2. Briefly the facts are that the defendant<br \/>\ndied on 9.4.2000 which came to the knowledge of<br \/>\nplaintiff on 11.7.2000 during the course of hearing of<br \/>\na complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable<br \/>\nInstruments Act.\n<\/p>\n<p> 3. It is stated that the earlier counsel of the<br \/>\nplaintiff did not take timely steps for impleading the<br \/>\nlegal representative of the defendant. It was only in<br \/>\nOctober 2000 that the plaintiff was asked by his<br \/>\nearlier counsel to sign two applications, one under<br \/>\nSection 5 of the Limitation Act and the other under<br \/>\nOrder 22 Rule 4 CPC for bringing on record the legal<br \/>\nrepresentative of the defendant. The said<br \/>\napplications were got attested on 3.11.2000 and were<br \/>\nstated to have been filed on 6.11.2000 vide diary<br \/>\nNo. 76832 as would be seen from Annexure P-3 to the<br \/>\npresent application. However, as the same had been<br \/>\nstated to be misplaced by the registry, the same were<br \/>\nagain filed on 19.1.2001. On 26.9.2001, these two<br \/>\napplications were withdrawn by the plaintiff on the<br \/>\nground that the same had not been properly drafted and<br \/>\ncontained incorrect statement of facts. It is also<br \/>\nstated that the earlier counsel did not take interest<br \/>\nin the case. The plaintiff also reminded the earlier<br \/>\ncounsel to take steps in this regard. Furthermore,<br \/>\nthe brother of the plaintiff was also hospitalised<br \/>\nsince 16.9.2001 and therefore also the plaintiff could<br \/>\nnot pursue the matter vigorously with his earlier<br \/>\ncounsel. It is further stated that the delay in<br \/>\nfiling the application was also because when the<br \/>\nplaintiff heard about the death of the defendant, he<br \/>\nwanted to verify the same since the defendant was a<br \/>\ntantric and was capable of faking his own death and<br \/>\ntendering a death certificate in support thereof and<br \/>\nescape his liability.\n<\/p>\n<p> 4. It is further submitted that delay in filing<br \/>\nthe application is neither deliberate nor intentional<br \/>\nbut due to the aforesaid reasons.\n<\/p>\n<p> 5. The application is opposed by the legal<br \/>\nrepresentative of the defendant. It is stated that<br \/>\nthe plaintiff was aware of the death of the defendant,<br \/>\ninitially on 9.4.2002 and then on 11.7.2002 in a<br \/>\nproceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable<br \/>\nInstruments Act. It is also stated that even if the<br \/>\napplications were filed on 6.11.2000, the same are<br \/>\ntime barred from the date of knowledge of the death of<br \/>\nthe deceased. The period of 90 days expired on<br \/>\n10.10.2000.\n<\/p>\n<p> 6. Learned counsel for the defendant places<br \/>\nreliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in  <a href=\"\/doc\/902635\/\">Union<br \/>\nof India v. Ram Charam<\/a> (deceased) through his legal<br \/>\nRepresentatives  wherein it was held as<br \/>\nunder:-\n<\/p>\n<p>  &#8220;There is no question of construing the<br \/>\nexpression &#8216;sufficient cause&#8217; liberally<br \/>\neither because the party in default is the<br \/>\nGovernment or because the question arises<br \/>\nin connection with the impleading of the<br \/>\nlegal representatives of the deceased<br \/>\nrespondent. The provisions of the Code<br \/>\nare with a view to advance the cause of<br \/>\njustice&#8230;..This, however, does not mean<br \/>\nthat the Court should readily accept<br \/>\nwhatever the appellant alleges to explain<br \/>\naway his default. It has to scrutinise it<br \/>\nand would be fully justified in<br \/>\nconsidering the merits of the evidence led<br \/>\nto establish the cause for the appellant&#8217;s<br \/>\ndefault in applying within time for the<br \/>\nimpleading of the legal representatives of<br \/>\nthe deceased or for setting aside the<br \/>\nabatement. It is true that it is no duty<br \/>\nof the appellant to make regular enquiries<br \/>\nfrom time to time about the health or<br \/>\nexistence of the respondent, but it does<br \/>\nnot mean that the mere fact of the<br \/>\nappellant&#8217;s coming to know of the<br \/>\nrespondent&#8217;s death belatedly will, by<br \/>\nitself justify his application for setting<br \/>\naside the abatement. That is not the law.<br \/>\nRule 9 of Order XXII of the Code requires<br \/>\nthe plaintiff to prove that he was<br \/>\nprevented by any sufficient cause from<br \/>\ncontinuing the suit. The mere allegation<br \/>\nabout his not coming to know of the death<br \/>\nof the opposite party is not sufficient.<br \/>\nHe had to state reasons which, according<br \/>\nto him, led to his not knowing of the<br \/>\ndeath of the defendant within reasonable<br \/>\ntime and to establish those reasons to the<br \/>\nsatisfaction of the Court, specially when<br \/>\nchallenged by the legal representatives of<br \/>\nthe deceased who have secured a valuable<br \/>\nright on the abatement of the suit&#8230;..&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties<br \/>\nand also perused the documents placed on record.\n<\/p>\n<p> 8. An application for bringing the legal heirs<br \/>\nof a deceased on record is to be made within 90 days<br \/>\nfrom the date of death of the deceased or from the<br \/>\ndate of knowledge of death of the deceased. In the<br \/>\npresent case, the defendant No.1 died on 9.4.2000<br \/>\nwhich came to the plaintiff&#8217;s knowledge on 11.7.2000.<br \/>\nHis earlier counsel got the applications signed from<br \/>\nhim on 30.10.2000 which were stated to have been filed<br \/>\non 6.11.2000 and lost by the registry. The same<br \/>\napplications were again filed in January 2001 but were<br \/>\nsubsequently withdrawn in September 2001 due to<br \/>\nincorrectness of facts in the said applications.\n<\/p>\n<p> 9. It is settled law that to obtain extension<br \/>\nof time by invoking the provisions of Section 5 of the<br \/>\nLimitation Act, the party seeking extension has to<br \/>\nsatisfy the Court that there is sufficient cause for<br \/>\nnot approaching the Court within the prescribed time.<br \/>\nSection 5 gives the Court a discretion which is to be<br \/>\nexercised upon established principles.\n<\/p>\n<p> 10. A plethora of decisions lay down that the<br \/>\nexpression &#8216;sufficient cause&#8217; is to be liberally<br \/>\nconstructed so as to advance substantial justice when no<br \/>\nnegligence or inaction or bonafides is imputable to<br \/>\nthe parties. It is adequately elastic to enable the<br \/>\nCourt to apply the law in a meaningful manner which<br \/>\nsubserves the ends of Justice. It does not mean that<br \/>\nevery cause pleaded by the party has to be accepted<br \/>\nwhere the party is negligent and has slept over its<br \/>\nright for over a year. The Court must not exercise<br \/>\ndiscretion in such cases.\n<\/p>\n<p> 11. <a href=\"\/doc\/1117226\/\">In  Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag &amp;<br \/>\nAnr. v. Mst. Katiji and Ors.<\/a> ,<br \/>\ntheir lordships of the Supreme Court have held that a<br \/>\njustice-oriented approach has to be adopted while<br \/>\ndealing with an application under Section 5 of the<br \/>\nLimitation Act and that &#8220;every day&#8217;s delay must be<br \/>\nexplained&#8221; does not mean that technical approach<br \/>\nshould be made.\n<\/p>\n<p> 12. Negligence of counsel may be accepted by the<br \/>\nCourt as a justification in extending time unless the<br \/>\nerror of the counsel was tainted by any mala fide<br \/>\nmotive though the mistake of counsel cannot be treated<br \/>\nas sufficient ground to condone delay by way of a rule<br \/>\nof universal application. It is all a question of<br \/>\ndetermining the bona fides of the litigant.\n<\/p>\n<p> 13. Admittedly, the plaintiff filed the initial<br \/>\napplication on 6.11.2000, i.e., after a delay of about<br \/>\n27 days. The application was lost by the Registry.<br \/>\nIt was re-filed in January, 2001. There was in fact<br \/>\ndelay on the part of the earlier counsel of the<br \/>\nplaintiff in filing the application under Order 22<br \/>\nRule 4 CPC and the plaintiff cannot be made to suffer<br \/>\non account of the mistake of his counsel. Moreover,<br \/>\nthis is a suit under Order xxxvII for the recovery of<br \/>\nthe amount which was taken by the defendant from the<br \/>\nplaintiff by way of cheque.\n<\/p>\n<p> 14. The applicant has been able to make out<br \/>\nsufficient cause for condensation of delay in filing<br \/>\nthe application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC. Equities<br \/>\nare also in favor of the applicant. The explanation<br \/>\noffered is cogent. The negligence, if any, was on the<br \/>\npart of the earlier counsel in not filing the<br \/>\napplication on time. The applicant was diligent and<br \/>\nhas disclosed sufficient cause to warrant exercise of<br \/>\ndiscretion by this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p> 15. In these circumstances, it would be<br \/>\nappropriate and in the interest of justice if the<br \/>\npresent application is allowed, however, subject to<br \/>\npayment of costs.\n<\/p>\n<p> 16. Accordingly, the present application is<br \/>\nallowed subject to payment of Rs. 5,000\/- as costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>  I.A. \/2001  <\/p>\n<p> Let the application be numbered.\n<\/p>\n<p> 17. By way of this application, the plaintiff<br \/>\nseeks to substitute the legal representative of the<br \/>\ndeceased defendant.\n<\/p>\n<p> 18. In reply, the proposed legal representative<br \/>\nstates that the application is time barred. However,<br \/>\nit has not been denied that he is the only legal<br \/>\nrepresentative of the deceased defendant.\n<\/p>\n<p> 19. I have heard learned counsel for the<br \/>\nparties.\n<\/p>\n<p> 20. In view of the application for condensation<br \/>\nof delay having been allowed, the present application<br \/>\nis also allowed. The proposed legal representative of<br \/>\nthe deceased defendant as mentioned in para 3 of the<br \/>\napplication be substituted in place of the defendant.\n<\/p>\n<p> Application stands disposed of.\n<\/p>\n<p>  S.No. 2809\/99  <\/p>\n<p> 21. Amended memo of parties be filed within four<br \/>\nweeks.\n<\/p>\n<p> 22. Plaintiff is also directed to take steps for<br \/>\nfiling appropriate application for issuance of summons<br \/>\nfor judgment.\n<\/p>\n<p> List on 18th December 2002.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Yogesh Prasad Soti vs Ram Narayan @ Balti Baba on 22 November, 2002 Equivalent citations: 102 (2003) DLT 669, 2003 (67) DRJ 7, (2003) 134 PLR 29 Author: C Mahajan Bench: C Mahajan JUDGMENT C.K. Mahajan, J. 1. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condensation of [&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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-88717","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Yogesh Prasad Soti vs Ram Narayan @ Balti Baba on 22 November, 2002 - 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\/yogesh-prasad-soti-vs-ram-narayan-balti-baba-on-22-november-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Yogesh Prasad Soti vs Ram Narayan @ Balti Baba on 22 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogesh-prasad-soti-vs-ram-narayan-balti-baba-on-22-november-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-11-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-01T06:05:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogesh-prasad-soti-vs-ram-narayan-balti-baba-on-22-november-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogesh-prasad-soti-vs-ram-narayan-balti-baba-on-22-november-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Yogesh Prasad Soti vs Ram Narayan @ Balti Baba on 22 November, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-11-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-01T06:05:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogesh-prasad-soti-vs-ram-narayan-balti-baba-on-22-november-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1483,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogesh-prasad-soti-vs-ram-narayan-balti-baba-on-22-november-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogesh-prasad-soti-vs-ram-narayan-balti-baba-on-22-november-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogesh-prasad-soti-vs-ram-narayan-balti-baba-on-22-november-2002\",\"name\":\"Yogesh Prasad Soti vs Ram Narayan @ Balti Baba on 22 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-11-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-01T06:05:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogesh-prasad-soti-vs-ram-narayan-balti-baba-on-22-november-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogesh-prasad-soti-vs-ram-narayan-balti-baba-on-22-november-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogesh-prasad-soti-vs-ram-narayan-balti-baba-on-22-november-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Yogesh Prasad Soti vs Ram Narayan @ Balti Baba on 22 November, 2002\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Yogesh Prasad Soti vs Ram Narayan @ Balti Baba on 22 November, 2002 - 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\/yogesh-prasad-soti-vs-ram-narayan-balti-baba-on-22-november-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Yogesh Prasad Soti vs Ram Narayan @ Balti Baba on 22 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogesh-prasad-soti-vs-ram-narayan-balti-baba-on-22-november-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-11-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-01T06:05:41+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogesh-prasad-soti-vs-ram-narayan-balti-baba-on-22-november-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogesh-prasad-soti-vs-ram-narayan-balti-baba-on-22-november-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Yogesh Prasad Soti vs Ram Narayan @ Balti Baba on 22 November, 2002","datePublished":"2002-11-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-01T06:05:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogesh-prasad-soti-vs-ram-narayan-balti-baba-on-22-november-2002"},"wordCount":1483,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogesh-prasad-soti-vs-ram-narayan-balti-baba-on-22-november-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogesh-prasad-soti-vs-ram-narayan-balti-baba-on-22-november-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogesh-prasad-soti-vs-ram-narayan-balti-baba-on-22-november-2002","name":"Yogesh Prasad Soti vs Ram Narayan @ Balti Baba on 22 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-11-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-01T06:05:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogesh-prasad-soti-vs-ram-narayan-balti-baba-on-22-november-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogesh-prasad-soti-vs-ram-narayan-balti-baba-on-22-november-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogesh-prasad-soti-vs-ram-narayan-balti-baba-on-22-november-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Yogesh Prasad Soti vs Ram Narayan @ Balti Baba on 22 November, 2002"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/88717","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=88717"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/88717\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=88717"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=88717"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=88717"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}