{"id":93824,"date":"2010-03-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-southern-and-rajamani-vs-r-srinivasan-on-30-march-2010"},"modified":"2017-03-23T20:20:35","modified_gmt":"2017-03-23T14:50:35","slug":"ms-southern-and-rajamani-vs-r-srinivasan-on-30-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-southern-and-rajamani-vs-r-srinivasan-on-30-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"M\/S.Southern And Rajamani vs R.Srinivasan on 30 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S.Southern And Rajamani vs R.Srinivasan on 30 March, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 30\/03\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM\n\nCRP PD(MD)No.463 of 2010\nand\nMP(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2010\n\n1.M\/s.Southern and Rajamani\n  Transport Private Limited\n  Rep.by its Director\n  V.R.Venkataswamy\n  No.270, Goods Shed Road,\n  Madurai-625 001.\n2.M.K.P.Srinivasa Perumal\n3.C.Venkatesan\n4.G.Parimala\n5.N.Vijayalakshmi\n6.G.Jayanthi\n7.C.Latha Maheswari\n8.R.Soundarajan\n9.R.Sekar\n10.Usha Rani\n11.Ramadevi\n\n12.Estate of B.V.Ramachandra Naidu\n  rep.by its Intermeddler\n  V.R.Venkataswamy\n13.R.Balaji\n14.B.T.Padmavathi\n15.Jayalakshmi\n16.Leelavathi\n17.Estate of B.V.Rajagopal Naidu\n  rep.by its Intermeddler\n  S.Meenalochini\n18.Malleswari\n19.V.R.Venkateswaran\n20.G.Shenchulakshmi\n21.G.Rajkumar\n22.V.R.Rammohan\n23.Estate of B.V.Balakrishna Naidu\n  rep.by its Intermeddler\n  V.B.Dhanalakshmi\n24.V.B.Deenadayalan\n25.V.B.Chandrasekaran\n26.V.B.Baskaran\n27.B.Lakshmikantham\n28.V.Kanjana Mala\n29.V.B.Venkataswamy\n30.Estate of B.V.Bangaruswamy Naidu\n  Rep.by its Intermeddler\n  M.Thiruveni\n31.Thiruvengadam\n32.V.B.Venkatasubramanian\n33.Estate of V.Mohanram Naidu\n  rep.by its Intermeddler\n  V.M.Balakrishnan\n34. V.M.Gajapathi     .. Petitioners\/Defendants 1, 2\n\t\t\t    3, 5, 6, 8 to 24, 26 to 37\n\t\t\t\n\nVs\n\n\n1.R.Srinivasan               .. Respondent\/plaintiff\n\n2.Estate of B.V.Govindarajulu Naidu\n  rep by its Intermeddler\n  G.Sanjeevi Rajan\n\n3.R.Vasantha\n\n4.V.R.Narasimhalu          .. Respondents\/defendants \t\t\t\t\n4, 7 and 25\n\n\t\nCivil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of\nIndia to strike off the plaint in Original Suit No.3 of 2010 on the file of the\nPrincipal District Court, Pudukottai.\n\n\n!For Petitioners    ...  Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan\n\t\t\t Senior counsel\n\t\t\t for M\/s.V.Ramajegadeesan\n\n^For R - 1          ...  Mr.G.Sridharan\n\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
\tThis civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
\nConstitution of India praying to strike off the plaint filed in Original Suit
\nNo.3 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Court, Pudukottai in respect
\nof the revision petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. The first respondent herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit
\nNo.3 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Court, Pudukottai praying to
\npass a decree of specific performance and also for passing perpetual injunction,
\nwherein the present revision petitioners have been shown as defendants 1, 2, 3,
\n5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. In the plaint it is averred that both the plaintiff and 25th defendant
\nby name V.R.Narasimhalu have entered into a sale agreement dated 20.09.2000 and
\nthereby the 25th defendant has agreed to sell the properties mentioned in the
\nschedule for a sum of Rs.63,00,000\/- to the plaintiff and on the date of sale
\nagreement, the plaintiff has given a sum of Rs.10,00,000\/- by way of an advance
\nand since the 25th defendant has failed to execute a sale deed in favour of the
\nplaintiff, Original Suit No.3 of 2010 has been instituted for the reliefs sought
\nfor therein.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. In the present civil revision petition it has been contended that the
\nproperties mentioned in the schedule in Original Suit No.3 of 2010 are belonged
\nto the first defendant viz., M\/s.Southern and Rajamani Transport Private Limited
\nand subsequently the first defendant has been liquidated  as per Company
\nApplication No.1503 of 2008 and the same has been confirmed by the High Court in
\nCompany Petition No.71 of 1974 and thereafter a liquidator has been appointed
\nand now he is having administration over the same. Further it has been contended
\nthat the first respondent\/plaintiff is not having cause of action so as to
\ninstitute Original Suit No.3 of 2010 against the defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to
\n24 and 26 to 37 (revision petitioners). Under the said circumstances, the plaint
\nfiled in Original Suit No.3 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Court,
\nPudukottai is liable to be struck off in respect of the  defendants 1, 2, 3, 5,
\n6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. Before pondering the rival submissions made by either counsel, it has
\nbecome shunless to find out as to whether the first respondent\/plaintiff is
\nhaving cause of action so as to institute Original Suit No.3 of 2010 against the
\nrevision petitioners\/defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37. It has
\nalready been pointed out that Original Suit No.3 of 2010 has been instituted on
\nthe file of the Principal District Court, Pudukottai on the basis of the alleged
\nsale agreement dated 20.09.2000 entered into betwixt the first
\nrespondent\/plaintiff and fourth respondent \/25th defendant.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. The main attack made on the side of the revision petitioners is that
\nsince the agreement dated 20.09.200 has become emerged betwixt the first
\nrespondent\/plaintiff and fourth respondent\/25th defendant, the revision
\npetitioners are totally unnecessary parties and no cause of action has arisen so
\nas to institute Original Suit No.3 of 2010 against them.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. Cause of action means a group of operative facts giving rise to one or
\nmore bases for suing; a factual situation that entitles one person to obtain a
\nremedy in Court from another person. Therefore, it is pellucid that for
\ninstituting a suit, there must be a cause of action against a person so as to
\nobtain a remedy in Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. The specific case of the first respondent\/plaintiff is that he and
\nfourth respondent\/25th defendant have entered into sale agreement dated
\n20.09.2000 and thereby the fourth respondent\/25th defendant has agreed to sell
\nthe properties mentioned in the schedule for a sum of Rs.63,00,000\/- and thereby
\nhe received a sum of Rs.10,00,000\/- by way of an advance.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. In paragraph-2 of the sale agreement dated 20.09.2000, it is stated
\nlike thus:\n<\/p>\n
\tWhereas the vendor is seized and possessed of all the piece of vacant land
\nin all measuring 1-82 acres comprised in various survey numbers situated at
\nNo.52, Thirumayam Road, Pudukottai, bearing patta No.5406, more fully described
\nin the schedules A and B, absolutely free from encumbrances and the said
\nproperty had originally belonged to one Southern Rajamani Transport Pvt. Ltd., a
\ncompany duly registered under the provisions of the Companies Act;\n<\/p>\n
\t10. In paragraph-4 it is stated like thus:\n<\/p>\n
\tWhereas prior to the filing of the said C.P.No.71 of 1974, a regular
\nagreement had been drafted and as per the agreement, the Directors of the
\ncompany had been allotted with distinct properties and accordingly the vacant
\nland comprised in door No.52, Thirumayam Road, Pudukottai pertaining to the
\nproperty more fully described in the schedules A and B had been allotted to
\nB.V.Rajagopal Naidu, the father of the vendor herein. The said property is once
\nagain allotted to the said B.V.Rajagopal Naidu and accordingly he had also asked
\nto discharge some liability as per the understanding arrived at in the
\nsubsequent agreement dated 14.1.1976. All the 6 directors, who were physically
\nalive on the date of the said agreement, had signed the said agreement and
\naccordingly all the directors had given powers to B.V.Rajagopal Naidu to take
\nevery step for effecting the liquidation and for completing the same and also to
\nincur expenses in this connection etc. In the counter statement filed by one
\nB.V.Balakrishna Naidu, one of the directors of the company had categorically
\nsaid that the agreement dated 10.08.1972 is acted upon and the same provides for
\ncomplete division of all the assets and liabilities of the company. Under Clause
\n10 of the agreement dated 10.08.1972, the property at Pudukottai more fully
\ndescribed in the schedules A and B are allotted to B.V.Rajagopal Naidu and
\nsimilarly the facts are also reiterated in the Counter Statement filed by the
\nother director Mr.Mohan Ram Naidu. The said B.V.Rajagopal Naidu died on
\n21.12.1981 leaving behind his wife Pitchammal, 3 sons and 3 daughters. His wife
\nPitchammal also has passed away on 18.08.1990. The sisters of V.R.Narasimhalu,
\nG.Rajalakshmi wife of Gajapathy and S.Meenalochini, wife of S.Sudarsanam had
\nexecuted a release deed in favour of V.R.Narasimhalu on 15.11.1984 duly
\nregistered as Document No.79 of 1984 at the office of the Sub Registrar,
\nCoonoor. On 19.11.1984 another daughter of late B.V.Rajagopal Naidu by name
\nK.Malleswari wife of Krishnamoorthy had executed a release deed in favour of
\nV.R.Narasimhalu and the said release deed also had been duly registered at the
\noffice of the Sub Registrar, Madurai as document No.186 of 1984 and similarly on
\n10.1.1992 the son of late B.V.Rajagopal Naidu, V.R.Ram Mohan had executed a
\nrelease deed in favour of the vendor duly registered as document No.35 of 1992
\nat the office of the Sub Registrar, Madurai. Further on 30.12.1999 another son
\nof late B.V.Rajagopal Naidu V.R.Venkateswaran had executed an unregistered
\nrelease deed in favour of V.R.Narasimhalu and the same had been attested by a
\nNotary public at Madurai. Thereafter, the sole surviving director of the company
\nunder liquidation in C.P.No.71 of 1974 R.Venkatasamy had executed a power of
\nattorney in favour of the vendor dated 27.1.2000 duly registered at the office
\nof the Sub Registrar, Madurai as document No.196 of 2000. Hence the vendor is
\nentitled to deal with the said property and accordingly he is also authorised to
\nrepresent the company now in liquidation.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. From the close reading of paragraphs – 2 and 4 of the sale agreement
\ndated 20.09.2000, it is quite clear that the fourth respondent\/25th defendant
\nhas executed the same in his individual capacity and further, the definite stand
\ntaken by him is that the properties mentioned in the sale agreement dated
\n20.09.2000 have been allotted to his father by name B.V.Rajagopal Naidu and
\nsubsequently the other heirs of B.V.Rajagopal Naidu have executed release deeds
\nin his favour and therefore, in his individual capacity he executed the sale
\nagreement dated 20.09.2000. Since the sale agreement dated 20.09.2000 has been
\nexecuted by the fourth respondent\/25th defendant in his individual capacity and
\nsince his definite stand is that all the properties mentioned therein have been
\nallotted to his father viz., B.V.Rajagopal Naidu, the sale agreement dated
\n20.09.2000 is not binding upon the revision petitioners\/defendants 1, 2, 3, 5,
\n6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. It has already been pointed out that for instituting a suit so as to
\nget relief from another person, there must be a cause of action or causes of
\naction. Unless cause of action has arisen against a particular person, he or she
\ncannot be impleaded in a suit. To put it in nutshell, there must be a legal tie
\nso as to implead a person in a legal proceeding. In the instant case, as pointed
\nout earlier, the sale agreement dated 20.09.2000 has become emerged in between
\nthe first respondent\/ plaintiff and fourth respondent\/25th defendant. At the
\nmost, the court can come to a conclusion that there is a privity of contract in
\nbetween the first respondent\/plaintiff and fourth respondent\/25th defendant.
\nFurther there is no privity of contract in between the first
\nrespondent\/plaintiff and revision petitioners\/defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24
\nand 26 to 37. Since there is no privity of contract between the first
\nrespondent\/plaintiff and revision petitioners\/defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24
\nand 26 to 37, no suit can be instituted against them. Even though there is no
\nprivity of contract betwixt the revision petitioners\/defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8
\nto 24 and 26 to 37 and first respondent\/plaintiff, the revision petitioners\/
\ndefendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37, the revision
\npetitioners\/defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37 have been arrayed as
\nparties in Original Suit No.3 of 2010. Since no privity of contract is in
\nexistence betwixt the first respondent\/plaintiff and revision petitioners\/
\ndefendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37, it is needless to say that the
\nrevision petitioners are totally unnecessary parties to Original Suit No.3 of
\n2010. Since the revision petitioners\/defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to
\n37 are totally unnecessary parties to Original Suit No.3 of 2010, it is needless
\nto say that the plaint filed in Original Suit No.3 of 2010 is liable to be
\nstruck off in respect of them.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. Now the Court has to look into the submissions made by either counsel.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners has
\nlaconically and also ingeniously contended that the sale agreement dated
\n20.09.2000 has come into existence in between the first respondent\/plaintiff and
\nfourth respondent\/25th defendant so as to sell the properties mentioned in
\nOriginal Suit No.3 of 2010 and the revision petitioners are not at all parties
\nto the same and further, the fourth respondent\/25th defendant has not executed
\nthe same for himself and on behalf of the revision petitioners. But the first
\nrespondent\/ plaintiff has chosen to implead the revision petitioners in Original
\nSuit No.3 of 2010 as  defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37 and the
\nPrincipal District Court, Pudukottai without considering the basic principle of
\nlaw that there is no privity of contract in between the revision
\npetitioners\/defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37 and first
\nrespondent\/plaintiff and also without considering binding nature of the sale
\nagreement dated 20.09.2000, has erroneously taken the plaint on file in Original
\nSuit No.3 of 2010 against the revision petitioners\/defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8
\nto 24 and 26 to 37. The Principal District Court, Pudukottai has done clear
\ninjustice and also miscarriage of justice. Under the said circumstances, the
\nrevision petitioners\/defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37 are entitled
\nto invoke the provision of Article 227 of the Constitution of India so as to get
\nthe relief sought for in the revision petition. Under the said circumstances,
\nthe plaint filed in Original Suit No.3 of 2010 is liable to be struck off in
\nrespect of the revision petitioners\/defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to\n<\/p>\n
37.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. In order to controvert the argument advanced by the learned Senior
\nCounsel appearing for the revision petitioners\/defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24
\nand 26 to 37, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent\/plaintiff
\nhas also equally contended that even though the sale agreement dated 20.09.2000
\nhas become emerged in between the first respondent\/plaintiff and fourth
\nrespondent\/25th defendant, since the suit properties are originally belonged to
\nthe first defendant\/first revision petitioner herein viz., M\/s.Southern and
\nRajamani Transport Private Ltd., and since the revision petitioners are also
\nhaving interest in it, they have been impleaded as parties to Original Suit No.3
\nof 2010 and further, they have been impleaded as if in a suit for specific
\nperformance a subsequent purchaser is liable to be impleaded and if the revision
\npetitioners are having genuine grievance with regard to their inclusion in
\nOriginal Suit No.3 of 2010, their proper remedy is only to file a petition under
\nOrder 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and without invoking the
\nsame, the present civil revision petition is not legally maintainable and
\nArticle 227 of the Constitution of India can be invoked only if there is any
\nmiscarriage of justice or flagrant violation of natural justice and in the
\npresent case no such miscarriage of justice is  present. Under the said
\ncircumstances, the civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t16. Article 227 of the Constitution of India reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\tPower of superintendence over all courts by the High Court.-[(1) Every
\nHigh Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout
\nthe territories in relation to which its exercises jurisdiction.]
\n\t(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the
\nHigh Court may-\n<\/p>\n
\t(a) call for returns from such courts;\n<\/p>\n
\t(b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the
\npractice and proceedings of such courts; and\n<\/p>\n
\t(c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by
\nthe officers of any such courts.\n<\/p>\n
\t(3) The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to the
\nsheriff and all clerks and officers of such courts and to attorneys, advocates
\nand pleaders practising therein:\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided that any rules made, forms prescribed or tables settled under
\nclause (2) or clause (3) shall not be inconsistent with the provision of any law
\nfor the time being in force, and shall require the previous approval of the
\nGovernor.\n<\/p>\n
\t(4) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on a High Court
\npowers of superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any
\nlaw relating to the Armed Forces.\n<\/p>\n
\t17. From the close reading of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it
\nis easily discernible that every High Court is having power of superintendence
\nover all Courts and Tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it
\nexercises jurisdiction. Further it is made clear that the same can be invoked in
\na case if it is shown that a grave injustice has been done to a party.\n<\/p>\n
\t18. In the instant case, as elucidated earlier, the sale agreement dated
\n20.09.2000 has become emerged in between the first respondent\/ plaintiff and
\nfourth respondent\/25th defendant so as to sell the suit properties mentioned in
\nOriginal Suit No.3 of 2010. It has already been pointed out in many places that
\nthere is no nexus in between the first respondent\/plaintiff and revision
\npetitioners\/ defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37. Since there is no
\nnexus in between them, in Original Suit No.3 of 2010, the revision petitioners\/
\ndefendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37  should not be arrayed as
\nparties. Therefore, it is very clear that a grave injustice has been done to the
\nrevision petitioners\/defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37. Under the
\nsaid circumstances, the present civil revision petition is factually and legally
\nmaintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
\t19. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent\/plaintiff has
\nmade an inept attempt so as to buttress the contention urged on the side of the
\nfirst respondent\/plaintiff by way of acciting the following decisions:\n<\/p>\n
\t20. In Durga Prasad and another V. Deep Chand and others (AIR 1954 SC 75),
\nthe Honourable Apex Court has held that “a suit for specific performance by
\nprior purchaser against his vendor and subsequent purchaser is legally
\nmaintainable.”\n<\/p>\n
\t21. It is an everlasting and also an axiomatic principle of law that
\nsubsequent purchaser will step into the shoes of his vendor, who entered into a
\nsale agreement with prior purchaser. Under the said circumstances, subsequent
\npurchaser is also a necessary and proper party to a suit instituted for specific
\nperformance.\n<\/p>\n
\t22. Here the position is inverse. It is not the case of the first
\nrespondent\/plaintiff that the defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37
\nare the subsequent purchases from the fourth respondent \/25th defendant. The
\nfourth respondent\/25th defendant has entered into the sale agreement in question
\nin his individual capacity and his definite stand is that the properties
\nmentioned therein have been allotted to his father B.V.Rajagopal Naidu and other
\nlegal heirs of B.V.Rajagopal Naidu have executed release deeds in favour of the
\nfourth respondent\/25th defendant. Therefore, the dictum found in the decision
\nreported earlier is not suitable to the facts and circumstances of the present
\ncase.\n<\/p>\n
\t23. In Sadhana Lodh Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd and another (2003) 3
\nSupreme Court Cases 524, the Honourable Apex Court has held that “where a
\nstatute provided an appeal on limited grounds, the said grounds of challenge
\ncannot be enlarged by filing a writ petition under Articles 226\/227.”\n<\/p>\n
\t24. In Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and others (2003) 6 Supreme Court
\nCases 675, the Honourable Apex Court has held in paragraph 22 that “Article 227
\nof the Constitution confers on every High Court the power of superintendence
\nover all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it
\nexercises jurisdiction excepting any court or tribunal constituted by or under
\nany law relating to the armed forces. Without prejudice to the generality of
\nsuch power the High Court has been conferred with certain specific powers by
\nclauses (2) and (2) of Article 227 with which we are not concerned hereat. It is
\nwell settled that the power of superintendence so conferred on the High Court is
\nadministrative as well as judicial, and in capable of being invoked at the
\ninstance of any person aggrieved or may even be exercised suo motu. The
\nparamount consideration behind vesting such wide power of superintendence in the
\nHigh Court is paving the way of justice and removing any obstacle therein. The
\npower under Article 227 is wider than the one conferred on the High Court by
\nArticle 226 in the sense that the power of superintendence is not subject to
\nthose technicalities of procedure or traditional fetters which are to be found
\nin certain jurisdiction. Else the parameters invoking the exercise of power are
\nalmost similar.”\n<\/p>\n
\t25. In Ganapathy Subramanian Vs. S.Ramalingam and others (2007) 7 MLJ 13,
\nthis Court has held that “only wrong decisions may not be a ground for the
\nexercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, unless wrong is
\nreferable to grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of power by the
\nsubordinate Courts and Tribunals resulting in grave injustice to a party.”\n<\/p>\n
\t26. In Radhey Shyam and another Vs. Chhabinath and others (2009) 5 Supreme
\nCourt Cases 616, the Honourable Apex Court has held that “Under Article 227 of
\nthe Constitution of India, the High Court does not issue a writ of certiorari.
\nArticle 227 of the Constitution vests the High Courts with a power of
\nsuperintendence which is to be very sparingly exercised to keep tribunals and
\ncourts within the bounds of their authority. Under Article 227, orders of both
\ncivil and criminal courts can be examined only in very exceptional cases when
\nmanifest miscarriage of justice has been occasioned. Such power, however, is not
\nto be exercised to correct a mistake of fact and of law.”\n<\/p>\n
\t27. In Madras Gymkhana Club, represented by its Hon’y Secretary, The
\nIsland Grounds, Anna Salai, Chennai-600002 and others Vs. K.C.Sukumar (2010 (1)
\nCTC 199) “this Court has taken a similar view as taken by the Honourable Apex
\nCourt for invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India.”\n<\/p>\n
\t28. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision
\npetitioners\/defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37 has also accentuated
\nthe Court to look into the following decisions:\n<\/p>\n
\t(i) In A.Sreedevi Vs. Vicharapu Ramakrishna Gowd (2005 (5) CTC 748) this
\nCourt has held that “Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be invoked to
\nprevent abuse of process of law and such a plea can be raised in Revision
\nPetition without approaching trial Court.”\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii) In Tamilnadu Handloom Weavers Cooperative Society rep.by its Managing
\nDirector Vs. S.R.Ejaz rep. by its power Agent Muralidhar T.Balani (2009 5 LW 79)
\nthis Court has held that “the suit itself is abuse of process of law and filed
\nwith the sole intention of defeating the order passed by the Supreme Court and
\nthe trial Court having apprised of such facts, failed to act at once, this Court
\nis entitled to exercise the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
\nconstitution of India to axe the suit in the initial stage itself.\n<\/p>\n
\t29. From the cumulative reading of the decisions referred to supra, it is
\neasily discernible that Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be invoked
\nby every High Court under the guise of superintendence, on the following
\ngrounds:\n<\/p>\n
\t(a) to prevent abuse of process of law\n<\/p>\n
\t(b) to prevent miscarriage of justice\n<\/p>\n
\t(c) to prevent grave injustice\n<\/p>\n
\t(d) to establish both administrative as well as judicial power of High
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
\t30. In the instant case, even at the risk of jarring repetition the Court
\nwould like to point out that the sale agreement dated 20.09.2000 has become
\nemerged only in between the first respondent\/plaintiff and fourth
\nrespondent\/25th defendant. No way the revision petitioners \/defendants 1, 2, 3,
\n5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37  are connected with the alleged sale agreement dated
\n20.09.2000. But inspite lack of of binding nature upon them, they have been
\nunnecessarily dragged on to a judicial proceeding by way of filing Original Suit
\nNo.3 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Court, Pudukottai. Therefore
\nin the present case a manifest miscarriage of justice has been occasioned. To
\nput it in short, a grave injustice has been caused to the revision
\npetitioners\/defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37  by way of impleading
\nthem in Original Suit No.3 of 2010. Under the said circumstances, the present
\ncivil revision petition  is legally and also factually maintainable under
\nArticle 227 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
\t31. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent\/plaintiff has
\nalso advanced his residual argument stating that if the revision
\npetitioners\/defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37 are having genuine
\ngrievance to the effect that they have been erroneously impleaded in Original
\nSuit No.3 of 2010, an efficacious relief is available under Order 7 Rule 11 of
\nthe Code of civil Procedure, 1908 and the same has not been invoked by way of
\nfiling a separate petition and therefore, the present civil revision petition is
\nnot maintainable under Article 227 of the constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
\t32. It has already been assorted the circumstances under which Article 227
\nof the Constitution of India can be invoked by a High Court. In the instant
\ncase, a grave injustice has been done to the revision petitioners\/defendants 1,
\n2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37 by way of impleading them as parties to
\nOriginal Suit No.3 of 2010, even though there is no nexus betwixt them and the
\nfirst respondent \/plaintiff. Of course it is true that an efficacious relief is
\navailable under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. But at the
\nsame time, since miscarriage of justice as well as injustice have been caused to
\nthe revision petitioners \/defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37, their
\napproach by way of filing the present civil revision petition to the High Court
\nso as to ventilate their grievance is legally maintainable. Therefore, viewing
\nfrom any angle, the entire argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing
\nfor the first respondent\/plaintiff is sans merit, whereas the argument advanced
\nby the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners \/defendants
\n1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37 is really having subsisting force.\n<\/p>\n
\t33. Before, parting with this civil revision petition, it has become
\nindefeasible to say something about the conduct of the Principal District Court,
\nPudukottai. The first respondent\/plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.3 of
\n2010 for the reliefs of specific performance and perpetual injunction mainly on
\nthe basis of the sale agreement dated 20.09.2000 alleged to have been executed
\nby the fourth respondent\/25th defendant. Even in the said sale agreement it has
\nbeen specifically stated that the properties mentioned therein have been
\nallotted to the share of B.V.Rajagopal Naidu who is none other than the father
\nof the fourth respondent\/25th defendant. In the sale agreement dated 20.09.2000
\nthe present revision petitioners\/defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37
\nare not at all parties and there is no privity of contract as well as binding
\nnature between the revision petitioners\/defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26
\nto 37 and first respondent \/plaintiff. Therefore the revision petitioners
\n\/defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37  are totally unnecessary parties
\nto Original Suit No.3 of 2010. But the Principal District Court, Pudukottai has
\ntaken the plaint on file in Original Suit No.3 of 2010 without knowing the fact
\nthat there is no privity of contract between the revision petitioners\/defendants
\n1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37 and first respondent\/plaintiff. In fact, the
\nPrincipal District Court, Pudukottai has adopted a spasmodic as well as
\ndesultory conduct in numbering Original Suit No.3 of 2010. In every District,
\nPrincipal District Court is having power of superintendence over its Subordinate
\ncourts and the same should be a prototype in administration of justice. But,
\nhere the Principal District court, Pudukottai has done a flagrant and also a
\nstupendous mistake in numbering Original Suit No.3 of 2010 against the revision
\npetitioners. It is not an exaggeration to say that the Principal District Court,
\nPudukottai has adopted complete lethargic attitude for the reasons best known to
\nit. The approach made by the Principal District Court, Pudukottai is not only
\nregrettable but also condemnable.\n<\/p>\n
\t34. It has already been pointed out that a grave injustice has been done
\nto the revision petitioners\/defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37  by
\nway of impleading them in Original Suit No.3 of 2010 and further the Principal
\nDistrict Court, Pudukottai has also done equal and clear injustice to them by
\nway of taking the plaint on file in Original Suit No.3 of 2010. Under the said
\ncircumstances, the plaint filed in Original Suit No.3 of 2010 on the file of the
\nPrincipal District court, Pudukottai is liable to be struck off in respect of
\nthe revision petitioners\/defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37.\n<\/p>\n
\t35. In fine, this civil revision petition is allowed without cost.
\nConnected Miscellaneous petitions are closed. The plaint filed in Original Suit
\nNo.3 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Court, Pudukottai is ordered
\nto be struck off with regard to the revision petitioners \/defendants 1, 2, 3, 5,
\n6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37. The Principal District Court, Pudukottai is strictly
\ndirected to look into the matter and take necessary action against the staff
\nconcerned.\n<\/p>\n
mj<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
The Principal District Court, Pudukottai<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court M\/S.Southern And Rajamani vs R.Srinivasan on 30 March, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30\/03\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CRP PD(MD)No.463 of 2010 and MP(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2010 1.M\/s.Southern and Rajamani Transport Private Limited Rep.by its Director V.R.Venkataswamy No.270, Goods Shed Road, Madurai-625 001. 2.M.K.P.Srinivasa Perumal […]<\/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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-93824","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S.Southern And Rajamani vs R.Srinivasan on 30 March, 2010 - 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\/ms-southern-and-rajamani-vs-r-srinivasan-on-30-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S.Southern And Rajamani vs R.Srinivasan on 30 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-southern-and-rajamani-vs-r-srinivasan-on-30-march-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-03-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-23T14:50:35+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=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-southern-and-rajamani-vs-r-srinivasan-on-30-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-southern-and-rajamani-vs-r-srinivasan-on-30-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\/S.Southern And Rajamani vs R.Srinivasan on 30 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-23T14:50:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-southern-and-rajamani-vs-r-srinivasan-on-30-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":4390,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-southern-and-rajamani-vs-r-srinivasan-on-30-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-southern-and-rajamani-vs-r-srinivasan-on-30-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-southern-and-rajamani-vs-r-srinivasan-on-30-march-2010\",\"name\":\"M\/S.Southern And Rajamani vs R.Srinivasan on 30 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-23T14:50:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-southern-and-rajamani-vs-r-srinivasan-on-30-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-southern-and-rajamani-vs-r-srinivasan-on-30-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-southern-and-rajamani-vs-r-srinivasan-on-30-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\/S.Southern And Rajamani vs R.Srinivasan on 30 March, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"M\/S.Southern And Rajamani vs R.Srinivasan on 30 March, 2010 - 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\/ms-southern-and-rajamani-vs-r-srinivasan-on-30-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S.Southern And Rajamani vs R.Srinivasan on 30 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-southern-and-rajamani-vs-r-srinivasan-on-30-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-23T14:50:35+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":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-southern-and-rajamani-vs-r-srinivasan-on-30-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-southern-and-rajamani-vs-r-srinivasan-on-30-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S.Southern And Rajamani vs R.Srinivasan on 30 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-23T14:50:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-southern-and-rajamani-vs-r-srinivasan-on-30-march-2010"},"wordCount":4390,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-southern-and-rajamani-vs-r-srinivasan-on-30-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-southern-and-rajamani-vs-r-srinivasan-on-30-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-southern-and-rajamani-vs-r-srinivasan-on-30-march-2010","name":"M\/S.Southern And Rajamani vs R.Srinivasan on 30 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-23T14:50:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-southern-and-rajamani-vs-r-srinivasan-on-30-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-southern-and-rajamani-vs-r-srinivasan-on-30-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-southern-and-rajamani-vs-r-srinivasan-on-30-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S.Southern And Rajamani vs R.Srinivasan on 30 March, 2010"}]},{"@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\/93824","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=93824"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93824\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=93824"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=93824"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=93824"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}