{"id":210562,"date":"2019-02-22T10:00:46","date_gmt":"2019-02-22T04:30:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=210562"},"modified":"2019-03-05T14:51:31","modified_gmt":"2019-03-05T09:21:31","slug":"del-hc-court-is-not-storage-of-petitions-filed-by-negligent-litigants-not-permitted-to-blame-previous-counsel-after-21-years-for-not-providing-case-record","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/22\/del-hc-court-is-not-storage-of-petitions-filed-by-negligent-litigants-not-permitted-to-blame-previous-counsel-after-21-years-for-not-providing-case-record\/","title":{"rendered":"Del HC | Court is not storage of petitions filed by negligent litigants: Not permitted to blame previous counsel after 21 years for not providing case record"},"content":{"rendered":"

‘Vigilantibus, non-dermientibus, jura subveniunt’<\/em><\/p>\n

(the law helps those who are watchful and not those who are asleep)<\/p>\n

Delhi High Court:\u00a0<\/strong>Vinod Goel, J., dismissed\u00a0Delhi Waqf Board’s applications for condoning the delay of 21 years and restoring a revision petition.<\/p>\n

Hashmat Nabi and Swathi, Advocates for the Waqf Board submitted that on 15-05-2018, the newly constituted management took notice of the disposal of the present petition after instructing its standing counsel to prepare a list of matters which have been disposed of. The petition was originally filed though Raman Kapur, Advocate; and B.D. Sharma, Advocate appeared for the Board from 1989 till 1994. However, after that, no appearance was made o behalf of the Board and therefore, the petition\u00a0was dismissed for non-prosecution. In such background of the case, the application for condonation of 21 years’ delay along with the application for restoration of revision petition was filed.<\/p>\n

At the outset, the High Court observed,\u00a0“it is a well-settled principle of law that a litigant, whether it is an individual or a government body or any legal entity, it owes a duty to be vigilant of its rights and is also expected to be equally vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in the court of law against it or initiated at its instance.”<\/strong>Holding that the Board could not be permitted to blame the previous counsel after 21 years for not\u00a0providing the case record, the Court stated,\u00a0“it appears that the blame is being attributed to the previous counsel with a view to get the delay condoned. After filing the revision petition, the applicant cannot go off to sleep and wake up from a deep slumber after the passage of a long period of 21 years as if the court is a storage of the petitions filed by such negligent litigants. Simply because there is a change in the management cannot give sufficient cause to the applicant to file such\u00a0an application for restoration after a long period\u00a0of 21 years has elapsed.”\u00a0<\/strong>Relying on\u00a0N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy,\u00a0<\/em>(1998) 7 SCC 123<\/a>, the court reiterated,\u00a0“the object of the law of limitation is to compel a person to exercise his right of action within a reasonable time as also to discourage and suppress stale, fake or fraudulent claims.”\u00a0<\/strong>In such view of the matter, the court did not find any merit in the applications and therefore dismissed them. [Delhi Wakf Board v. Mohd. Bi,\u00a02019 SCC OnLine Del 7178<\/b><\/a>, dated 25-01-2019]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

‘Vigilantibus, non-dermientibus, jura subveniunt’ (the law helps those who are watchful and not those who are asleep) Delhi High Court:\u00a0Vinod Goel, J., <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[3460,2552,10141,33955,12971],"class_list":["post-210562","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-claims","tag-Condonation_of_delay","tag-fraud","tag-negligent-litigants","tag-revision-petition"],"yoast_head":"\nDel HC | Court is not storage of petitions filed by negligent litigants: Not permitted to blame previous counsel after 21 years for not providing case record | SCC Times<\/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.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/22\/del-hc-court-is-not-storage-of-petitions-filed-by-negligent-litigants-not-permitted-to-blame-previous-counsel-after-21-years-for-not-providing-case-record\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Del HC | Court is not storage of petitions filed by negligent litigants: Not permitted to blame previous counsel after 21 years for not providing case record\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"‘Vigilantibus, non-dermientibus, jura subveniunt’ (the law helps those who are watchful and not those who are asleep) Delhi High Court:\u00a0Vinod Goel, J.,\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/22\/del-hc-court-is-not-storage-of-petitions-filed-by-negligent-litigants-not-permitted-to-blame-previous-counsel-after-21-years-for-not-providing-case-record\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2019-02-22T04:30:46+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-05T09:21:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Delhi-HC.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1329\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"888\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/22\/del-hc-court-is-not-storage-of-petitions-filed-by-negligent-litigants-not-permitted-to-blame-previous-counsel-after-21-years-for-not-providing-case-record\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/22\/del-hc-court-is-not-storage-of-petitions-filed-by-negligent-litigants-not-permitted-to-blame-previous-counsel-after-21-years-for-not-providing-case-record\/\",\"name\":\"Del HC | Court is not storage of petitions filed by negligent litigants: Not permitted to blame previous counsel after 21 years for not providing case record | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2019-02-22T04:30:46+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-05T09:21:31+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/22\/del-hc-court-is-not-storage-of-petitions-filed-by-negligent-litigants-not-permitted-to-blame-previous-counsel-after-21-years-for-not-providing-case-record\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/22\/del-hc-court-is-not-storage-of-petitions-filed-by-negligent-litigants-not-permitted-to-blame-previous-counsel-after-21-years-for-not-providing-case-record\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/22\/del-hc-court-is-not-storage-of-petitions-filed-by-negligent-litigants-not-permitted-to-blame-previous-counsel-after-21-years-for-not-providing-case-record\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Del HC | Court is not storage of petitions filed by negligent litigants: Not permitted to blame previous counsel after 21 years for not providing case record\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Del HC | Court is not storage of petitions filed by negligent litigants: Not permitted to blame previous counsel after 21 years for not providing case record | SCC Times","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.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/22\/del-hc-court-is-not-storage-of-petitions-filed-by-negligent-litigants-not-permitted-to-blame-previous-counsel-after-21-years-for-not-providing-case-record\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Del HC | Court is not storage of petitions filed by negligent litigants: Not permitted to blame previous counsel after 21 years for not providing case record","og_description":"‘Vigilantibus, non-dermientibus, jura subveniunt’ (the law helps those who are watchful and not those who are asleep) Delhi High Court:\u00a0Vinod Goel, J.,","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/22\/del-hc-court-is-not-storage-of-petitions-filed-by-negligent-litigants-not-permitted-to-blame-previous-counsel-after-21-years-for-not-providing-case-record\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2019-02-22T04:30:46+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-05T09:21:31+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1329,"height":888,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Delhi-HC.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/22\/del-hc-court-is-not-storage-of-petitions-filed-by-negligent-litigants-not-permitted-to-blame-previous-counsel-after-21-years-for-not-providing-case-record\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/22\/del-hc-court-is-not-storage-of-petitions-filed-by-negligent-litigants-not-permitted-to-blame-previous-counsel-after-21-years-for-not-providing-case-record\/","name":"Del HC | Court is not storage of petitions filed by negligent litigants: Not permitted to blame previous counsel after 21 years for not providing case record | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2019-02-22T04:30:46+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-05T09:21:31+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/22\/del-hc-court-is-not-storage-of-petitions-filed-by-negligent-litigants-not-permitted-to-blame-previous-counsel-after-21-years-for-not-providing-case-record\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/22\/del-hc-court-is-not-storage-of-petitions-filed-by-negligent-litigants-not-permitted-to-blame-previous-counsel-after-21-years-for-not-providing-case-record\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/22\/del-hc-court-is-not-storage-of-petitions-filed-by-negligent-litigants-not-permitted-to-blame-previous-counsel-after-21-years-for-not-providing-case-record\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Del HC | Court is not storage of petitions filed by negligent litigants: Not permitted to blame previous counsel after 21 years for not providing case record"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":323252,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/30\/dhc-rejects-plea-challenging-appointment-of-delhi-waqf-boards-administrator\/","url_meta":{"origin":210562,"position":0},"title":"\u2018Absolute abuse of process of law\u2019; Delhi HC rejects plea challenging the appointment of Delhi Waqf Board\u2019s Administrator","author":"Editor","date":"May 30, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court noted that, other than stating the actions of respondent 2 are bad, no reason had been given by the petitioner on why he lacks the qualification to be appointed as an Administrator of the Waqf Board.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":280743,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/30\/religious-structures-and-graveyards-will-not-be-demolished-in-the-removal-of-unauthorized-encroachers-from-the-mehrauli-archaeological-park-delhi-high-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":210562,"position":1},"title":"Religious Structures and Graveyards will not be demolished in the removal of unauthorized encroachers from the Mehrauli Archaeological Park: Delhi High Court","author":"Editor","date":"December 30, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"The Delhi High Court had dismissed a petition against the removal of \u2018unauthorized encroachers\u2019 from the Mehrauli Archaeological Park area while recording that religious structures as well as graveyards will not be demolished in the process.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":257553,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/23\/litigants-who-indulge-in-frivolous-litigation-clogs-arteries-of-justice-delivery-system\/","url_meta":{"origin":210562,"position":2},"title":"Condonation of Delay | Litigants who indulge in frivolous litigation, clog arteries of justice delivery system: Read Court\u2019s opinion on vexatious litigation","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 23, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Saket Courts, New Delhi: Anuj Agrawal, Additional Sessions Judge-05, while addressing the present matter, expressed that, A litigant who takes liberty with court procedure should anticipate the necessary consequences. a stern message is required to be sent to the litigants who indulge in frivolous and vexatious litigation as such litigation\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Saket Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/District-Court-Saket.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/District-Court-Saket.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/District-Court-Saket.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/District-Court-Saket.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/District-Court-Saket.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":288608,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/05\/explained-why-delhi-high-court-expressed-concern-over-conversion-of-public-places-of-worship-into-residence-by-priests-imams-legal-news-legal-research-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":210562,"position":3},"title":"Delhi High Court expresses concern over conversion of public places of worship into residence by Priests and Imams","author":"Editor","date":"April 5, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Delhi High Court took note of the fact that Article 25 of the Constitution of India does not bestow such a right.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-472.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-472.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-472.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-472.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":298817,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/07\/delhi-hc-courts-must-prioritise-purpose-statute-technicalities-condonation-of-delay-applications\/","url_meta":{"origin":210562,"position":4},"title":"Delhi High Court | Courts must prioritise purpose of a statute over technicalities while deciding condonation of delay applications","author":"Arunima","date":"August 7, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The primary intent of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994 Act is to safeguard the rights of the unborn girl child and promote gender equality by curbing the misuse of diagnostic techniques for sex determination. Therefore, while deciding applications seeking condonation of delay, Courts should prioritize the Act's\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"delhi high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":315600,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/29\/civil-court-jurisdiction-barred-by-section-85-of-waqf-act-cal-hc-allows-application-under-order-vii-rule-11d-cpc-scc-times\/","url_meta":{"origin":210562,"position":5},"title":"Civil Court lacks jurisdiction over Waqf Property disputes: Calcutta High Court","author":"Ritu","date":"February 29, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Calcutta High Court held that \u201cin order to decide whether the suit is barred by any law, it is the statement in the plaint which will have to be construed.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Calcutta High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Calcutta-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Calcutta-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Calcutta-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Calcutta-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/210562","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=210562"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/210562\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=210562"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=210562"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=210562"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}