{"id":216154,"date":"2019-06-27T14:00:14","date_gmt":"2019-06-27T08:30:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=216154"},"modified":"2019-07-03T18:10:38","modified_gmt":"2019-07-03T12:40:38","slug":"ph-hc-presence-of-a-substantial-question-of-law-not-a-sine-qua-non-for-deciding-a-regular-second-appeal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/27\/ph-hc-presence-of-a-substantial-question-of-law-not-a-sine-qua-non-for-deciding-a-regular-second-appeal\/","title":{"rendered":"P&H HC | Presence of a substantial question of law, not a sine qua non for deciding a regular second appeal"},"content":{"rendered":"

Punjab and Haryana High Court: <\/strong>Sudip Ahluwalia, J. disposed of the matter directing the parties that a disputed land cannot be used by either of them and also stated that a regular second appeal can be accepted without a substantial question of law.<\/p>\n

In the present case, a suit was filed by the respondent in the trial court seeking a mandatory injunction for removal of the temporary tin sheds and other obstructions allegedly raised by the appellant (defendant in the suit) on a piece of land which was a wide public land on the western side of appellant\u2019s house. The disputed land was in an area named Madhu Colony, which was different from Sharma Colony where the respondent-plaintiffs house was located. The obstructions on this land caused a hindrance in the respondent\u2019s (plaintiff in the suit) ingress and egress to his house. The Trial Court granted an injunction to the respondent. Appellant challenged the said order in the Court of District Judge, who dismissed his appeal. Thereafter, the present appeal was filed and the same was disposed of by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in 2010 observing that plaintiff-respondent had no right of ingress and egress for his house through the disputed road, and thus the finding of the lower courts was reversed to that extent. However, the decree of the Courts below directing appellant-defendant to remove encroachment from the disputed road was affirmed. Aggrieved by this decision, respondent filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in Supreme Court and the matter was remitted back to this Court directing that it be seen if any substantial question of law arises in the second appeal and then rehear the parties.<\/p>\n

Issue: <\/strong>where encroachments on the disputed land are directed to be removed by a Court, would the party directed to remove encroachments, be still entitled to use the said land for ingress and egress from the side gate of his house.<\/p>\n

The Court relied on the decision in Pankajakshi v. Chandrika<\/em>, (2016) 6 SCC 157<\/a> where it was held that provisions of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, which permitted filing of Regular Second Appeals, was operative notwithstanding the restrictive conditions subsequently incorporated by way of amendment of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure in 1976. Consequently, the requirement of framing any substantial question of law was no longer a sine qua non <\/em>for deciding a Regular Second Appeal by this Court<\/p>\n

It was opined that a substantial question of fact and law had arisen in this case. The Court noted that respondent-plaintiff had no case that he was using the disputed area for ingress and egress on account of any Easementary right, or even by way of \u2018easement of necessity\u2019. There was no evidence to the effect that the side gate of respondent\u2019s house was constructed with the approval of municipal authorities.<\/p>\n

Thus, the appeal was disposed of directing the appellant to remove tin-shed and other man-made structures raised by him on the disputed land; and the respondent was also directed to not use the disputed land for ingress and egress unless expressly authorized by the local authorities. Further, the respondent was granted liberty to demolish the unauthorized concrete structures on the disputed land, in case the same were not removed by the appellant.[Mohan Lal v. Baldev Raj, 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 698<\/b><\/a>, decided on 30-05-2019]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Punjab and Haryana High Court: Sudip Ahluwalia, J. disposed of the matter directing the parties that a disputed land cannot be used <\/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":[36298,36300,36299,30639,25654],"class_list":["post-216154","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-easementary-right","tag-mandatory-injunction","tag-regular-second-appeal","tag-sine-qua-non","tag-substantial-question-of-law"],"yoast_head":"\nP&H HC | Presence of a substantial question of law, not a sine qua non for deciding a regular second appeal | 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\/06\/27\/ph-hc-presence-of-a-substantial-question-of-law-not-a-sine-qua-non-for-deciding-a-regular-second-appeal\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P&H HC | Presence of a substantial question of law, not a sine qua non for deciding a regular second appeal\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Punjab and Haryana High Court: Sudip Ahluwalia, J. disposed of the matter directing the parties that a disputed land cannot be used\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/27\/ph-hc-presence-of-a-substantial-question-of-law-not-a-sine-qua-non-for-deciding-a-regular-second-appeal\/\" \/>\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=\"2019-06-27T08:30:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-07-03T12:40:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/panjab_and_hariyana_high_court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\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=\"3 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\/06\/27\/ph-hc-presence-of-a-substantial-question-of-law-not-a-sine-qua-non-for-deciding-a-regular-second-appeal\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/27\/ph-hc-presence-of-a-substantial-question-of-law-not-a-sine-qua-non-for-deciding-a-regular-second-appeal\/\",\"name\":\"P&H HC | Presence of a substantial question of law, not a sine qua non for deciding a regular second appeal | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2019-06-27T08:30:14+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-07-03T12:40:38+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/27\/ph-hc-presence-of-a-substantial-question-of-law-not-a-sine-qua-non-for-deciding-a-regular-second-appeal\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/27\/ph-hc-presence-of-a-substantial-question-of-law-not-a-sine-qua-non-for-deciding-a-regular-second-appeal\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/27\/ph-hc-presence-of-a-substantial-question-of-law-not-a-sine-qua-non-for-deciding-a-regular-second-appeal\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P&H HC | Presence of a substantial question of law, not a sine qua non for deciding a regular second appeal\"}]},{\"@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":"P&H HC | Presence of a substantial question of law, not a sine qua non for deciding a regular second appeal | 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\/06\/27\/ph-hc-presence-of-a-substantial-question-of-law-not-a-sine-qua-non-for-deciding-a-regular-second-appeal\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P&H HC | Presence of a substantial question of law, not a sine qua non for deciding a regular second appeal","og_description":"Punjab and Haryana High Court: Sudip Ahluwalia, J. disposed of the matter directing the parties that a disputed land cannot be used","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/27\/ph-hc-presence-of-a-substantial-question-of-law-not-a-sine-qua-non-for-deciding-a-regular-second-appeal\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2019-06-27T08:30:14+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-07-03T12:40:38+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/panjab_and_hariyana_high_court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/27\/ph-hc-presence-of-a-substantial-question-of-law-not-a-sine-qua-non-for-deciding-a-regular-second-appeal\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/27\/ph-hc-presence-of-a-substantial-question-of-law-not-a-sine-qua-non-for-deciding-a-regular-second-appeal\/","name":"P&H HC | Presence of a substantial question of law, not a sine qua non for deciding a regular second appeal | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2019-06-27T08:30:14+00:00","dateModified":"2019-07-03T12:40:38+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/27\/ph-hc-presence-of-a-substantial-question-of-law-not-a-sine-qua-non-for-deciding-a-regular-second-appeal\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/27\/ph-hc-presence-of-a-substantial-question-of-law-not-a-sine-qua-non-for-deciding-a-regular-second-appeal\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/27\/ph-hc-presence-of-a-substantial-question-of-law-not-a-sine-qua-non-for-deciding-a-regular-second-appeal\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P&H HC | Presence of a substantial question of law, not a sine qua non for deciding a regular second appeal"}]},{"@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":220437,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/03\/ker-hc-%e2%94%82discretionary-reliefs-are-not-meant-for-those-who-are-on-a-snails-pace-in-approaching-a-court-of-law\/","url_meta":{"origin":216154,"position":0},"title":"Ker HC | Discretionary reliefs are not meant for those who are on a snail\u2019s pace in approaching a court of law","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 3, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Kerala High Court: A.M. Babu, J. dismissed a regular second appeal filed by a lady on the ground that no substantial question of law was involved therein. The appellant herein and the respondent herein were neighbors. The appellant claimed that the respondent constructed his house between the period 2003-2012 and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":239335,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/19\/high-court-not-obliged-to-frame-substantial-question-of-law-if-no-error-is-found-in-first-appellate-courts-findings-says-sc\/","url_meta":{"origin":216154,"position":1},"title":"High Court not obliged to frame substantial question of law if no error is found in First Appellate Court’s findings; says SC","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"November 19, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta* and Ajay Rastogi, JJ has held that the High Court is not obliged to frame substantial question of law, in case, it finds no error in the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court. The Court was hearing the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":253689,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/04\/section-100-cpc\/","url_meta":{"origin":216154,"position":2},"title":"Mere reference to factual aspects to conclude question of law does not mean facts and evidence have been reappreciated: SC restates law on second appeal under S. 100 CPC","author":"Editor","date":"September 4, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: A 3-Judge Bench of N.V. Ramana, CJI and A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. upheld the judgment of the Madras High Court passed in a second appeal whereby it had reversed the order of the first appellate court granting injunction in favour of the appellant\u2212plaintiff in a property\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-13.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-13.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-13.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-13.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-13.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":255954,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/22\/second-appeal-is-maintainable-if-only-the-case-involves-a-substantial-question-of-law\/","url_meta":{"origin":216154,"position":3},"title":"Sikk HC | Second appeal is maintainable if only the case involves a substantial question of law; Court dismisses appeal","author":"Editor","date":"October 22, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Sikkim High Court: Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J., dismissed the second appeal explaining that the second appeal is maintainable before the High Court if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin, (2012) 8 SCC 148,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":165294,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/10\/26\/statute-ousting-jurisdiction-civil-court-required-strictly-construed\/","url_meta":{"origin":216154,"position":4},"title":"Any statute ousting the jurisdiction of Civil Court is required to be strictly construed","author":"Saba","date":"October 26, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"High Court of Himachal Pradesh: A Single Judge Bench of Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. dismissed a Regular Second Appeal holding that in the instant case, jurisdiction of the Civil Courts was ousted by Section 171 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954; and there was no substantial question of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":216130,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/26\/ph-hc-litigants-to-exercise-due-diligence-in-pursuing-remedy-when-judgment-and-decree-already-assailed-before-lower-appellate-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":216154,"position":5},"title":"P&H HC | Litigants to exercise due diligence in pursuing remedy when judgment and decree already assailed before lower appellate court","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"June 26, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Punjab and Haryana High Court: Amit Rawal J., dismissed the second appeal petition on the ground that there was no substantial question for determination. The regular second appeal was preferred at the instance of the appellant\/defendant against the decretal suit against the injunction order to her to not to interfere\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/216154","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=216154"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/216154\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=216154"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=216154"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=216154"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}