{"id":95963,"date":"2009-08-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chand-vs-om-parkash-and-another-on-3-august-2009"},"modified":"2018-10-24T08:01:09","modified_gmt":"2018-10-24T02:31:09","slug":"ramesh-chand-vs-om-parkash-and-another-on-3-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chand-vs-om-parkash-and-another-on-3-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"Ramesh Chand vs Om Parkash And Another on 3 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Ramesh Chand vs Om Parkash And Another on 3 August, 2009<\/div>\n
R.S.A.No. 1745 of 2006(O&M)                                  {1}\n\n\n      In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh\n\n\n                                      R.S.A.No. 1745 of 2006(O&M)\n                                      Date of Decision:August 03, 2009\n\n\nRamesh Chand\n\n\n                                            ---Appellant\n\n\n                   versus\n\nOm Parkash and another\n\n\n                                            ---Respondents\n\nCoram:      HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA\n\n                 ***\n<\/pre>\n
Present:    Mr.Arihant Jain,Advocate,\n            for the appellant\n\n            Mr.Arun Jain, Senior Advocate,\n            for Mr. Vishal Sharma, Advocate\n            for respondents No. 1 and 2<\/span>\n\n                   ***\n\nSABINA J.\n\n<\/pre>\n
            Plaintiff – Om Parkash and Shiv Narain had filed a suit for<\/p>\n
possession by way of ejectment. Additional Civil Judge ( Senior Division),<\/p>\n
Jind vide judgment and decree dated 16.6.2000 dismissed the suit of the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs preferred an appeal and the<\/p>\n
same was allowed by District Judge, Jind vide judgment and decree dated<\/p>\n
23.6.2006. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants<\/p>\n
            The facts of the case as noticed by the learned District Judge,<\/p>\n
in paras 1 to 3 of its judgment read as under:-\n<\/p>\n
 R.S.A.No. 1745 of 2006(O&M)                                 {2}<\/p>\n
          “Om Parkash and Shiv Narain sons of Des Raj brought a suit<\/p>\n
          for ejectment of defendants Rmesh Chand son of Wazir Chand<\/p>\n
          and Harans Lal son of Uttam Chand from a shop situate near<\/p>\n
          Ghanta Ghar, Jind, as described in the head note of the plaint.<\/p>\n
          As per averments in the plaint, the shop in        question was<\/p>\n
          originally let out to the defendants by Shanti Devi, the mother<\/p>\n
          of the plaintiffs, through her husband Des Raj and after her<\/p>\n
          death an oral partition took place on 10.4.1988 between the<\/p>\n
          legal heirs of Shanti Devi whereby this shop fell to the share of<\/p>\n
          the plaintiffs exclusively and a memorandum of partition was<\/p>\n
          prepared on 22.4.1988. On the basis of partition, a decree was<\/p>\n
          also passed in their favour by the Civil court on 28.4.1988. In<\/p>\n
          this way, the title of the plaintiffs as owners and as landlords<\/p>\n
          was undisputed and the defendants occupied the demised<\/p>\n
          premises as tenants under the plaintiffs till their tenancy was<\/p>\n
          terminated by a notice dated 3.5.1988 sent by the plaintiffs<\/p>\n
          through their counsel and which had been served on defendant<\/p>\n
          Ramesh Chand by registered post on 4.5.1988. Vide that notice<\/p>\n
          the defendants were required to vacate the demised premises<\/p>\n
          after expiry of clear 15 days from the date of service. Cause of<\/p>\n
          action arose on 20.5.1988 for eviction when the defendants<\/p>\n
          failed to vacate the demised shop and failed to pay arrears of<\/p>\n
          rent from 1.4.1988 to 20.5.1988 at the rate of Rs. 970\/- per<\/p>\n
          month amounting to Rs. 1,616- 67 paise and for mesne profits<\/p>\n
          from 21.5.1988 to 24.5.1988 at the rate of Rs. 60\/- per day<\/p>\n
          amounting to Rs. 240\/-.      The disputed shop having been
\n R.S.A.No. 1745 of 2006(O&M)                                  {3}<\/p>\n
          constructed and completed by 11.10.1978, the same is exempt<\/p>\n
          for 10 years from the purview of Haryana Urban (Control of<\/p>\n
          Rent and Eviction)Act, 1973 and, as such, Civil court has got<\/p>\n
          jurisdiction in the matter. The plaintiffs prayed for a decree for<\/p>\n
          possession of the disputed shop and for recovery of Rs. 1,616-<\/p>\n
          67 paise as arrears of rent and damages\/mesne profits from<\/p>\n
          21.5.1988 to 24.5.1988 amounting to Rs. 240\/- and also made<\/p>\n
          prayer for damages\/mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 60\/- per day<\/p>\n
          from the date of institution of the suit till the date of recovery<\/p>\n
          of possession with interest.\n<\/p>\n
                      In his written statement, defendant No. 1 Ramesh<\/p>\n
          Chand controverted the case of the plaintiffs. He admitted that<\/p>\n
          the defendants had taken a shop on rent from Shanti Devi<\/p>\n
          through her husband on a monthly rent of Rs. 700\/- but asserted<\/p>\n
          that the boundaries of the shop described in the plaint are not<\/p>\n
          correct. He was not aware about the death of Shanti Devi and<\/p>\n
          the alleged partition among her legal heirs and about the<\/p>\n
          passing of a decree by the court in favour of the plaintiffs on<\/p>\n
          28.4.1988. Defendant No. 1 averred that all the legal heirs of<\/p>\n
          deceased Shanti Devi have not been made party to the suit and<\/p>\n
          the suit is, thus, had on account of non-joinder of necessary<\/p>\n
          parties. According to him, no notice of termination of tenancy<\/p>\n
          was served on him. He pleaded that there is no question of<\/p>\n
          termination of tenancy on 3.5.1988 when Des Raj (father of the<\/p>\n
          plaintiffs) had already received rent on 20.2.1988 for the period<\/p>\n
          1.1.1988 to 31.5.1988. It was also disclosed in the written
\n R.S.A.No. 1745 of 2006(O&M)                                     {4}<\/p>\n
            statement of defendant No. 1 that initially the rate of rent of the<\/p>\n
            shop in dispute was Rs. 700\/- and due to pressure of Des Raj<\/p>\n
            and imposition of house-tax, it was enhanced to Rs. 970\/-<\/p>\n
            (including house-tax).     Defendant No. 1 asserted that the<\/p>\n
            defendants are still occupying the demised shop as tenants and<\/p>\n
            are always ready and willing to pay rent from 1`.6.1988<\/p>\n
            onwards to the lawful owners\/claimants. It is also the stand of<\/p>\n
            defendant No. 1 that construction of the shop was              not<\/p>\n
            completed on 11.10.1978 as alleged in the plaint. His version<\/p>\n
            is that period of 10 years had expired much before filing of the<\/p>\n
            suit and only the Rent Controller has jurisdiction in this matter<\/p>\n
            and jurisdiction of civil court is barred. In addition, defendant<\/p>\n
            No. 1 raised a plea that the suit is not maintainable in the<\/p>\n
            present form.”\n<\/p>\n
            On the pleadings of the parties, trial court framed the following<\/p>\n
issues on 15.9.1989:-\n<\/p>\n
            “(1)Whether the plaintiffs are the owners of the shop in dispute,<\/p>\n
            as alleged? OPP<\/p>\n
            (2)Whether the construction of the shop in dispute was<\/p>\n
              completed by 11.10.1978, as alleged? OPP<\/p>\n
            (3)Whether the tenancy of the defendants stood terminated by a<\/p>\n
              valid notice dated 3.5.1988? OPP<\/p>\n
            (4)Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction in the matter ?<\/p>\n
              OPD<\/p>\n
            (5)Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties? OPD<\/p>\n
            (6)Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?<\/p>\n
 R.S.A.No. 1745 of 2006(O&M)                                     {5}\n\n\n               OPD\n\n            (7)Relief.\n\n<\/pre>\n
            The following additional issues were framed by the learned trial<\/p>\n
court on 6.2.1990:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            6(A) Whether the defendants are in arrears of rent of Rs.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                  1616.67 for the period from 1.4.1988 to 20.5.1988 @ Rs.<\/p>\n
                  970\/- per month and whether the plaintiffs are entitled to<\/p>\n
                  recover this amount from the defendants? OPP<\/p>\n
            6(B) Whether the defendants have paid the rent of the<\/p>\n
                  premises in question to Des Raj upto 31.5.1988, if so, its<\/p>\n
                  effect? OPD<\/p>\n
            6(C) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover mesne<\/p>\n
                  profits of the period from 21.5.1988 to 24.5.1988<\/p>\n
                  amounting to Rs. 240\/- at the rate of Rs. 60\/- per day?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
                  OPP<\/p>\n
            6(D) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to mesne<\/p>\n
                      profits\/damages at the rate of Rs. 60\/- per day from the<\/p>\n
                  date of the suit till the delivery of the possession along<\/p>\n
                  with interest at the rate of 12% per annum as alleged in<\/p>\n
                  the plaint? OPP<\/p>\n
            After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the<\/p>\n
opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Plaintiff had filed a suit for ejectment of the defendants from<\/p>\n
the shop in dispute after serving a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer<\/p>\n
of Property Act, 1882( hereinafter referred to as “the TP Act”). The case of<\/p>\n
the plaintiff was that the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act,
\n R.S.A.No. 1745 of 2006(O&M)                                    {6}<\/p>\n
1973(hereinafter referred to as “the Rent Act”), was not applicable to the<\/p>\n
facts of the present case as the suit for ejectment had been filed within a<\/p>\n
period of 10 years from the completion of the shop.<\/p>\n
              On the other hand, case of the defendants was that the suit<\/p>\n
instituted was not maintainable and the only remedy available to the<\/p>\n
plaintiff was to approach the Rent Controller for eviction as a period of 10-<\/p>\n
years had already elapsed from the completion of the shop in question.<\/p>\n
              The case of the plaintiff was that the shop in question was<\/p>\n
competed in October, 1978 and was rented out in the same month to the<\/p>\n
defendants.    Ex. PX    is the rent note    executed between the parties.<\/p>\n
Defendant No. 1-Ramesh Chand while appearing in the witness box did not<\/p>\n
deny his signatures on the rent note Ex. PX. He had also admitted that the<\/p>\n
rent note had been executed when he had taken the shop in dispute on rent<\/p>\n
and the rate of rent was Rs. 700\/- per month with effect from 18.10.1978.<\/p>\n
              A perusal of the rent note Ex. PX reveals that the shop in<\/p>\n
question was a newly constructed shop which was given on rent to the<\/p>\n
defendants. Building plans Exs. PW-3\/A and PW-3\/B also reveal that the<\/p>\n
shop in question was constructed after getting the building plans sanctioned<\/p>\n
from the Municipal Committee. As per the endorsement, the sanction was<\/p>\n
made on 6.7.1978. In these circumstances, courts below had rightly held<\/p>\n
that the suit had been filed within 10 years of competition of shop in<\/p>\n
question as such the provisions of the Rent Act were not applicable. Notice<\/p>\n
Ex. P-7 was duly served upon the defendants in terms of Section 106 of the<\/p>\n
TP Act. No reply was ever furnished by the defendants to the said notice.<\/p>\n
              Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Kishan alias Krishan<\/p>\n
Kumar etc. vs. Manoj Kumar etc. AIR 1998 Supreme Court 999 has
\n R.S.A.No. 1745 of 2006(O&M)                                    {7}<\/p>\n
held as under:-\n<\/p>\n
            “There is no provision in the Act taking away the jurisdiction<\/p>\n
            of a Civil Court to dispose of a suit validly instituted. There is<\/p>\n
            also no provision preventing the execution of a decree passed<\/p>\n
            in such a suit.    Section 13(1) does not expressly refer to<\/p>\n
            execution of a decree for possession. On a reading of all the<\/p>\n
            provisions of the Act, it is evident that it has not prevented a<\/p>\n
            Civil Court from adjudicating the rights accrued and the<\/p>\n
            liabilities incurred prior to the date on which the Act became<\/p>\n
            applicable to the building in question. If the Legislature had<\/p>\n
            intended to take away the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to<\/p>\n
            decide a suit which had been validly instituted, it would have<\/p>\n
            been worded differently. The purpose for which the exemption<\/p>\n
            is granted    statutorily under Section 1(3) is to encourage<\/p>\n
            construction of new building. That purpose would be defeated<\/p>\n
            if the owner of the building is deprived of his right to get<\/p>\n
            possession of the building unless he get a decree within a<\/p>\n
            period of ten years from the date of its completion. In fact the<\/p>\n
            logical consequence of the argument of the appellants if<\/p>\n
            accepted would be that even if a decree is obtained by the<\/p>\n
            landlord within ten years from its completion it cannot be<\/p>\n
            executed after the expiry of the said period of ten years as such<\/p>\n
            execution would not be in accordance with the provisions of<\/p>\n
            the Act. It is common knowledge that a proceeding in a Civil<\/p>\n
            Court for recovery of immovable property could be dragged on<\/p>\n
            by the defendant easily for a period of ten years or more and
\n R.S.A.No. 1745 of 2006(O&M)                                    {8}<\/p>\n
            thereby any tenant whose tenancy had been terminated validly<\/p>\n
            before the suit would successfully        make the proceeding<\/p>\n
            infructuous by prolonging the litigation. The argument of the<\/p>\n
            appellants cannot be accepted as otherwise the purpose of<\/p>\n
            exemption would get defeated.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                         Thus it is seen that this Court has been consistently<\/p>\n
            taking the view that a suit instituted during the period of<\/p>\n
            exemption could be continued and a decree passed therein<\/p>\n
            could be executed even though the period of exemption came<\/p>\n
            to an end during the pendency of the suit. The only discordant<\/p>\n
            note was struck in Vineet Kumar v. Mangal Sain Wadhera,<\/a><\/p>\n
            (1984) 3 SCC 352: (AIR 1985 SC 817). We have noticed that<\/p>\n
            several decisions subsequent thereto have held that Vineet<\/p>\n
            Kumar is not good law.        We have already construed the<\/p>\n
            relevant provisions of the Act and pointed out that there is<\/p>\n
            nothing in the Act which prevents the Civil Court from<\/p>\n
            continuing the suit and passing a decree which could be<\/p>\n
            executed.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              No substantial question of law arises in this appeal.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                  (SABINA)
\n                                                    JUDGE<\/p>\n
August 03, 2009
\nPARAMJIT\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Ramesh Chand vs Om Parkash And Another on 3 August, 2009 R.S.A.No. 1745 of 2006(O&M) {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 1745 of 2006(O&M) Date of Decision:August 03, 2009 Ramesh Chand —Appellant versus Om Parkash and another —Respondents Coram: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr.Arihant […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-95963","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRamesh Chand vs Om Parkash And Another on 3 August, 2009 - 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\/ramesh-chand-vs-om-parkash-and-another-on-3-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramesh Chand vs Om Parkash And Another on 3 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chand-vs-om-parkash-and-another-on-3-august-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-08-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-24T02:31:09+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\\\/ramesh-chand-vs-om-parkash-and-another-on-3-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-chand-vs-om-parkash-and-another-on-3-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramesh Chand vs Om Parkash And Another on 3 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-24T02:31:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-chand-vs-om-parkash-and-another-on-3-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1903,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-chand-vs-om-parkash-and-another-on-3-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-chand-vs-om-parkash-and-another-on-3-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-chand-vs-om-parkash-and-another-on-3-august-2009\",\"name\":\"Ramesh Chand vs Om Parkash And Another on 3 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-24T02:31:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-chand-vs-om-parkash-and-another-on-3-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-chand-vs-om-parkash-and-another-on-3-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-chand-vs-om-parkash-and-another-on-3-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramesh Chand vs Om Parkash And Another on 3 August, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Ramesh Chand vs Om Parkash And Another on 3 August, 2009 - 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\/ramesh-chand-vs-om-parkash-and-another-on-3-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramesh Chand vs Om Parkash And Another on 3 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chand-vs-om-parkash-and-another-on-3-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-24T02:31:09+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\/ramesh-chand-vs-om-parkash-and-another-on-3-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chand-vs-om-parkash-and-another-on-3-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramesh Chand vs Om Parkash And Another on 3 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-24T02:31:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chand-vs-om-parkash-and-another-on-3-august-2009"},"wordCount":1903,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chand-vs-om-parkash-and-another-on-3-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chand-vs-om-parkash-and-another-on-3-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chand-vs-om-parkash-and-another-on-3-august-2009","name":"Ramesh Chand vs Om Parkash And Another on 3 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-24T02:31:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chand-vs-om-parkash-and-another-on-3-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chand-vs-om-parkash-and-another-on-3-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chand-vs-om-parkash-and-another-on-3-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramesh Chand vs Om Parkash And Another on 3 August, 2009"}]},{"@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\/95963","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=95963"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/95963\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=95963"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=95963"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=95963"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}