{"id":89481,"date":"2008-11-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balwant-rai-vs-pana-on-3-november-2008"},"modified":"2019-03-20T09:12:19","modified_gmt":"2019-03-20T03:42:19","slug":"balwant-rai-vs-pana-on-3-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balwant-rai-vs-pana-on-3-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"Balwant Rai vs Pana on 3 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Jammu High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Balwant Rai vs Pana on 3 November, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU             \nCRev No. 200 of 2007 AND CRev No. 201 of 2007   \nBalwant Rai \npetitioner\nMohan Lal \nrespondent \n!Mr. Jatinder Choudhary, Advocate\n^Mr. M.L.Bhjardwaj, Advocate \n\nMR. JUSTICE J. P. SINGH, JUDGE    \nDate : 03\/11\/2008\n: J U D G M E N T :\n<\/pre>\n<p>Petitioner has filed these Revision petitions calling in question<br \/>\n2nd Additional District Judge, Jammu&#8217;s order of September 24, 2007<br \/>\ndeciding three preliminary issues framed in respondent&#8217;s Suit nos.<br \/>\n38\/Civil and 39\/Civil against him. The three common issues, which<br \/>\nwere decided by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Jammu, are as<br \/>\nunder:-\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>1. Whether the suit is not maintainable, as it does<br \/>\nnot satisfy the requirement of Order 37 CPC?\n<\/p>\n<p>OPD\n<\/p>\n<p>2. Whether the suit is hit by Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC. If so,<br \/>\nwhat is its effect? OPD\n<\/p>\n<p>3. Whether the suit is hit by principle of constructive res<br \/>\njudicata? OPD<br \/>\nAppearing in support of the Revision petitions, Mr. Jatinder<br \/>\nChoudhary assails the findings of the trial Court on issue No.2 saying<br \/>\nthat respondent&#8217;s suits were not maintainable in view of the bar<br \/>\nenacted under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure,<br \/>\nhereinafter referred to as the &#8220;Code&#8221;, in that, the plaintiff-respondent<br \/>\nhad omitted to seek the relief of recovery of the suit amount when he<br \/>\nhad filed his earlier suit seeking a Decree for permanent prohibitory<br \/>\ninjunction restraining the petitioner-defendant from selling 14 shops<br \/>\nand a house consisting of three rooms, kitchen, bathroom, latrine,<br \/>\nverandah and compound constructed on Plot No. 38 situated at Old<br \/>\nJanipur, Jammu, to any person other than the plaintiff-respondent and<br \/>\nto refrain from taking any advance for, or\/and to execute Sale Deed<br \/>\nof, the house. He has placed reliance on judgment dated 16.10.2007<br \/>\ndelivered by this Court in CSA Nos. 5\/2006 &amp; 6\/2006 to support his<br \/>\nsubmission.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Learned counsel had made a feeble attempt to question the<br \/>\nfindings of the trial Court on issue Nos. 1 &amp; 3 saying that the plaints<br \/>\nhaving not been drawn, in requisite form, the respondent&#8217;s suits,<br \/>\nwhich were otherwise barred by the principle of constructive<br \/>\nres judicata, were unsustainable.\n<\/p>\n<p>Supporting the findings of the trial Court on all the issues,<br \/>\nMr. M.L.Bhardwaj, learned Advocate for the respondent, says that<br \/>\nbased on a different cause of action than the one pleaded in the earlier<br \/>\nsuit, the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code or the principle of<br \/>\nconstructive res judicata were not applicable to respondent&#8217;s<br \/>\nsubsequent suits. He submitted that the respondent had drawn the<br \/>\nplaint in accordance with the provisions of Order 37 of the Code and<br \/>\nthe order passed by the trial Court holding the plaint to have been<br \/>\nvalidly drawn did not suffer from any error of law or jurisdiction.<br \/>\nI have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the<br \/>\nparties and gone through the records of the case.<br \/>\nBefore dealing with the submissions raised at the Bar, few facts<br \/>\nneed to be noticed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Before the filing of two suits by the respondent seeking<br \/>\nrecovery of an amount of Rs. 1 lac in each suit from the petitioner, on<br \/>\nthe basis of Promissory Notes executed on 14.01.1994 and<br \/>\n15.08.1995, the respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit against the<br \/>\npetitioner-defendant seeking a Decree for permanent prohibitory<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">4<\/span><br \/>\ninjunction restraining the petitioner-defendant from selling 14 shops<br \/>\nand a house consisting of three rooms, kitchen, bathroom, latrine,<br \/>\nverandah and compound constructed on Plot No. 38 situated at Old<br \/>\nJanipur, Jammu to any person other than the plaintiff and to refrain<br \/>\nfrom taking any advance for, or\/and to execute Sale Deed of, the<br \/>\nhouse. It had been pleaded by the respondent-plaintiff in the suit that<br \/>\nthe he had advanced an amount of Rs.4,50,000\/- on loan to the<br \/>\npetitioner who had mortgaged all the documents of his house and the<br \/>\nshops with him. The petitioner had thereafter executed an Agreement<br \/>\nto Sell on 02.06.1998 saying therein that in case he would fail to pay<br \/>\nRs.4,50,000\/- with interest to the respondent, he would execute Sale<br \/>\nDeed of the shops and house in favour of the respondent. Petitioner is<br \/>\nstated to have later refused to execute Sale Deed of the shops and<br \/>\nhouse in favour of the respondent and had declared that he would sell<br \/>\nthe property to someone else, compelled whereby, the respondent had<br \/>\nfiled the suit of permanent prohibitory injunction as mentioned<br \/>\nhereinabove.\n<\/p>\n<p>With the aforementioned facts in view, I will proceed to<br \/>\nexamine the submissions made at the Bar.\n<\/p>\n<p>Before dealing with the findings of the trial Court on issue<br \/>\nNo.1, regard needs to be had to the provisions of Order 37 Rule 2 of<br \/>\nthe Code, which for facility of reference are reproduced hereunder:-\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>&#8220;2. Institution of summary suits<br \/>\n(1) A suit in which this Order applies, may if the<br \/>\nplaintiff desires to proceed hereunder, be instituted<br \/>\nby presenting a plaint which shall contain,-\n<\/p>\n<p>(a) a specific averment to the effect that the suit is filed<br \/>\nunder this Order;\n<\/p>\n<p>(b) that no relief, which does not fall within the ambit of<br \/>\nthis rule, has been claimed in the plaint; and\n<\/p>\n<p>(c) the following inscription, imme-diately below the<br \/>\nnumber of the suit in the title of the suit, namely:-<br \/>\n&#8220;(Under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil<br \/>\nProcedure, Svt. 1977)&#8221;.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Although the provisions of Order 37 Rule 2 of the Code require<br \/>\na plaintiff, desirous of proceeding under Order 37 of the Code, to aver<br \/>\nthe three requisites indicated in Rule 2, yet there is no corresponding<br \/>\nprovision in Order 37 which may indicate the consequences flowing<br \/>\nfrom the omission to incorporate the three requisites in the plaint,<br \/>\nwhich, in other words, would demonstrate that incorporation of the<br \/>\nthree requisites in the plaint may not be mandatory to maintain a suit<br \/>\nunder Order 37.\n<\/p>\n<p>Be that as it may, what I find from the reading of respondent&#8217;s<br \/>\nplaints is that he has specifically mentioned in the title of the two<br \/>\nplaints that these were &#8220;summary suits under Order 37 Rule 2 of the<br \/>\nCode of Civil Procedure for recovery of Rs. 1 lac with interest from<br \/>\nthe defendant, on the basis of hundi and receipt.&#8221;<br \/>\nIn paragraph (11) and the prayer clause of the two plaints, the<br \/>\nrespondent-plaintiff records as follows:-<br \/>\n&#8220;11. That parties to the suit are residents of Old Janipur<br \/>\nJammu and hundi was also executed at Old Janipur<br \/>\nJammu within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon&#8217;ble<br \/>\nCourt. Hence this Hon&#8217;ble court has got the jurisdiction<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">6<\/span><br \/>\nto entertain the summary suit under Order 37 Rule 2<br \/>\nC.P.C and grant the relief.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that a decree for<br \/>\nrecovery of Rs. One Lac with 24% P.A. interest from<br \/>\nthe defendant on the basis of hundi and receipt dated<br \/>\n15.8.1995 respectively under the provision of Summary<br \/>\nsuit under Order 37 Rule 2 C.P.C may kindly be passed<br \/>\nand the amount be recovered with interest mentioned in<br \/>\nthe hundi till the whole amount is finally paid to the<br \/>\nplaintiff with costs of the suit.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Perusal of respondent&#8217;s plaints indicates that he has not claimed<br \/>\nany such relief in the suits which may not fall within the ambit of<br \/>\nOrder 37 of the Code.\n<\/p>\n<p>In this view of the matter, I am of the view that the trial Court<br \/>\nwas perfectly right in deciding issue No.1 against the petitioner, in<br \/>\nthat, the respondent had substantially complied with the requirements<br \/>\nof Order 37 Rule 2 of the Code in drawing his plaints.<br \/>\nI, therefore, do not find any error in trial Court&#8217;s deciding issue<br \/>\nNo.1 against the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>I will now proceed to examine petitioner&#8217;s counsel&#8217;s second<br \/>\nsubmission that the respondent&#8217;s suit was hit by the principle of<br \/>\nconstructive res judicata and the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 of the<br \/>\nCode, and the trial Court had erred in deciding issue Nos. 2 &amp; 3<br \/>\nagainst the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code does not require that when a<br \/>\ntransaction or right gives rise to several causes of action, they should<br \/>\nall be combined in one suit. All that is prohibited by Order 2 Rule 2<br \/>\n(3) of the Code is that a cause of action cannot be permitted to be split<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">7<\/span><br \/>\nup to sue for one part in one and the other in another suit. When a<br \/>\ncause of action gives rise to only one relief, the entire claim is<br \/>\nrequired to be included in the suit, and, if it is not so done, the<br \/>\nsubsequent suit for the omitted or relinquished portion would be<br \/>\nbarred forever. There may be cases in which same cause of action<br \/>\nmay give rise to several reliefs. In such cases also, all these reliefs are<br \/>\nrequired to be claimed in the same suit, for omission to do so, would<br \/>\nattract the Bar of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code.\n<\/p>\n<p>Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code, would have, however, no<br \/>\napplication to cases where the plaintiff bases his suit on separate and<br \/>\ndistinct cause(s) of action and chooses to relinquish one or the other.<br \/>\nIn such cases, it shall remain open to the plaintiff to file a fresh suit on<br \/>\nthe basis of a distinct cause of action which he may have so<br \/>\nrelinquished.\n<\/p>\n<p>In order to deal with the issue in question, the expression<br \/>\n&#8220;cause of action&#8221; appearing in Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code needs to be<br \/>\nproperly understood.\n<\/p>\n<p>Cause of action has acquired a judicially settled meaning i.e.<br \/>\nsimply a factual situation, the existence of which entitles one person<br \/>\nto obtain from the Court a remedy against another person. It includes<br \/>\nevery fact which is material to be proved to entitle the suitor to<br \/>\nsucceed, and every fact which a defendant would have a right to<br \/>\ntraverse. &#8220;Cause of action&#8221; has also been taken to mean that particular<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">8<\/span><br \/>\nact on the part of the defendant which gives the plaintiff his cause of<br \/>\naction\/complaint, or the subject matter of grievance founding the<br \/>\naction and not merely the technical cause of action.<br \/>\nIt was observed by the Privy Council in Payana versus Pana<br \/>\nLana (1914) 41 IA 142 that &#8220;the rule is directed to securing the<br \/>\nexhaustion of the relief in respect of a cause of action and not to the<br \/>\ninclusion in one and the same action, different causes of action, even<br \/>\nthough they arise from the same transaction. One great criterion is,<br \/>\nwhen the question arises as to whether the cause of action in the<br \/>\nsubsequent suit is identical with that in the first suit, whether the same<br \/>\nevidence will maintain both actions.\n<\/p>\n<p>In view of the above legal position as to the meaning of the<br \/>\nexpression &#8220;cause of action&#8221; appearing in Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code<br \/>\nit is clear that respondent&#8217;s earlier suit, based on Agreement to Sell<br \/>\ndated 02.06.1998 had been filed against the petitioner on the basis of a<br \/>\ncause of action which had accrued to him because of the threat of the<br \/>\npetitioner to sell the shops and house to someone else, was thus<br \/>\nentirely different from the one which has been pleaded by the<br \/>\nrespondent in the present suits to have accrued to him after the filing<br \/>\nof his earlier suit, when despite presentation of the hundies to the<br \/>\npetitioner by Mr. V.K.Khajuria, Notary, the defendant had not<br \/>\nhonoured the demand thereby giving a cause of action to the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">9<\/span><br \/>\nrespondent to file suits against the petitioner when he had refused to<br \/>\npay the demanded amount on 19.08.1998.\n<\/p>\n<p>In view of the above discussion, I find that learned 2nd<br \/>\nAdditional District Judge, Jammu was justified in deciding issue No.2<br \/>\nagainst the petitioner by holding that the present suits were on the<br \/>\nbasis of hundies and the earlier suit had been filed on the basis of an<br \/>\nAgreement to Sell.\n<\/p>\n<p>I, therefore, do not find any substance in petitioner&#8217;s contention<br \/>\nthat the respondent&#8217;s suits were hit by the bar enacted by the<br \/>\nprovisions of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code.\n<\/p>\n<p>Judgment delivered by this Court in CSA Nos. 5\/2006 &amp;<br \/>\n6\/2006 is not applicable to the facts of the present case as it does not<br \/>\ndeal with the issue which has arisen in the present Revision petitions.<br \/>\nThe next contention of petitioner&#8217;s counsel is also devoid of<br \/>\nany merit, in that, nothing had been decided by the Court on merits in<br \/>\nthe earlier suit on the issues which arise in the subsequent two suits<br \/>\nand in that view of the matter principle of constructive res judicata<br \/>\nwould have absolutely no application to the maintainability of the<br \/>\npresent suits.\n<\/p>\n<p>All the preliminary objections reflected in the three similar<br \/>\nissues raised in the two suits are thus untenable which have been<br \/>\nrightly repelled by the trial Court by deciding the issues against the<br \/>\npetitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>1 0<br \/>\nThere is thus no force in these Revision petitions which are,<br \/>\naccordingly, dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>(J. P. Singh)<br \/>\nJudge<br \/>\nJammu<br \/>\n03.11.2008<br \/>\nPawan chopra<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Jammu High Court Balwant Rai vs Pana on 3 November, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU CRev No. 200 of 2007 AND CRev No. 201 of 2007 Balwant Rai petitioner Mohan Lal respondent !Mr. Jatinder Choudhary, Advocate ^Mr. M.L.Bhjardwaj, Advocate MR. JUSTICE J. P. SINGH, JUDGE Date : 03\/11\/2008 : [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-89481","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jammu-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Balwant Rai vs Pana on 3 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balwant-rai-vs-pana-on-3-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Balwant Rai vs Pana on 3 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balwant-rai-vs-pana-on-3-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-11-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-20T03:42:19+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balwant-rai-vs-pana-on-3-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balwant-rai-vs-pana-on-3-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Balwant Rai vs Pana on 3 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-20T03:42:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balwant-rai-vs-pana-on-3-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2062,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jammu High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balwant-rai-vs-pana-on-3-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balwant-rai-vs-pana-on-3-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balwant-rai-vs-pana-on-3-november-2008\",\"name\":\"Balwant Rai vs Pana on 3 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-20T03:42:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balwant-rai-vs-pana-on-3-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balwant-rai-vs-pana-on-3-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balwant-rai-vs-pana-on-3-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Balwant Rai vs Pana on 3 November, 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":"Balwant Rai vs Pana on 3 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balwant-rai-vs-pana-on-3-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Balwant Rai vs Pana on 3 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balwant-rai-vs-pana-on-3-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-20T03:42:19+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balwant-rai-vs-pana-on-3-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balwant-rai-vs-pana-on-3-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Balwant Rai vs Pana on 3 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-20T03:42:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balwant-rai-vs-pana-on-3-november-2008"},"wordCount":2062,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jammu High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balwant-rai-vs-pana-on-3-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balwant-rai-vs-pana-on-3-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balwant-rai-vs-pana-on-3-november-2008","name":"Balwant Rai vs Pana on 3 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-20T03:42:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balwant-rai-vs-pana-on-3-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balwant-rai-vs-pana-on-3-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balwant-rai-vs-pana-on-3-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Balwant Rai vs Pana on 3 November, 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\/89481","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=89481"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/89481\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=89481"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=89481"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=89481"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}