{"id":217735,"date":"2019-08-06T09:30:35","date_gmt":"2019-08-06T04:00:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=217735"},"modified":"2019-08-13T12:25:06","modified_gmt":"2019-08-13T06:55:06","slug":"del-hc-partition-suit-rejected-under-or-7-r-11-cpc-for-want-of-cause-of-action-in-light-of-general-power-of-attorney-and-requisition-deed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/06\/del-hc-partition-suit-rejected-under-or-7-r-11-cpc-for-want-of-cause-of-action-in-light-of-general-power-of-attorney-and-requisition-deed\/","title":{"rendered":"Del HC | Partition suit rejected under Or. 7 R. 11 CPC for want of cause of action in light of General Power of Attorney and Requisition Deed"},"content":{"rendered":"

Delhi High Court:\u00a0<\/strong>Pratibha M. Singh, J. allowed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the defendant in the subject partition suit. The said application sought rejection of plaint (partition suit) on two grounds — that the suit lacked cause of action and the suit was time-barred.<\/p>\n

The plaintiff was the son of defendant’s deceased brother. The property in question originally belonged to Kundan Lal Kapur, the father of the defendant. The plaintiff had brought a suit for partition of the property. The defendant filed the present application for rejection of the suit. It was proved that the suit property was in occupation and possession of the defendant. It was mutated in his name after the execution of three General Power of Attorneys and relinquishment deeds in his favour by remaining heirs of Kundan Lal Kapur, including plaintiff’s father. Also, the said documents were executed in 1979, i.e., more than 36 years before filing of the partition suit.<\/p>\n

The High Court noted that the GPAs and the relinquishment deeds were duly registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 with the relevant authorities, and therefore they were not required to be proved by an attesting witness as is evident from Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872. It was observed: “under the provisions of the Registration Act read with the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, registered documents ought to be read in evidence. The same carries a sanctity in law and are presumed to have been executed.” <\/strong>Further,\u00a0“The fact that these documents were executed way back in 1979, i.e. almost 40 years ago and 36 years by the time the suit was filed, itself shows that they have enormous sanctity especially in view of Section 90 of the Evidence Act, 1872.”<\/strong><\/p>\n

Since the GPAs and the relinquishment deeds were all registered documents, the same were presumed to be valid and legal. In these circumstances, the Court held that the plaintiff did not have any cause of action, and his partition suit was therefore rejected. The application of the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 was allowed.[Rajinder Kumar Kapur v. Madan Mohan Lal Kapur, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9472<\/b><\/a>, decided on 29-07-2019]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Delhi High Court:\u00a0Pratibha M. Singh, J. allowed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the defendant in the subject <\/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":[12171,36945,31554,5622,36946,36944],"class_list":["post-217735","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-cause-of-action","tag-general-power-of-attorney","tag-order-7-rule-11-cpc","tag-partition-suit","tag-requisition-deed","tag-section-17-of-registration-act"],"yoast_head":"\nDel HC | Partition suit rejected under Or. 7 R. 11 CPC for want of cause of action in light of General Power of Attorney and Requisition Deed | 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\/08\/06\/del-hc-partition-suit-rejected-under-or-7-r-11-cpc-for-want-of-cause-of-action-in-light-of-general-power-of-attorney-and-requisition-deed\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Del HC | Partition suit rejected under Or. 7 R. 11 CPC for want of cause of action in light of General Power of Attorney and Requisition Deed\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court:\u00a0Pratibha M. Singh, J. allowed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the defendant in the subject\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/06\/del-hc-partition-suit-rejected-under-or-7-r-11-cpc-for-want-of-cause-of-action-in-light-of-general-power-of-attorney-and-requisition-deed\/\" \/>\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=\"2019-08-06T04:00:35+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-08-13T06:55:06+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\/08\/06\/del-hc-partition-suit-rejected-under-or-7-r-11-cpc-for-want-of-cause-of-action-in-light-of-general-power-of-attorney-and-requisition-deed\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/06\/del-hc-partition-suit-rejected-under-or-7-r-11-cpc-for-want-of-cause-of-action-in-light-of-general-power-of-attorney-and-requisition-deed\/\",\"name\":\"Del HC | Partition suit rejected under Or. 7 R. 11 CPC for want of cause of action in light of General Power of Attorney and Requisition Deed | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2019-08-06T04:00:35+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-08-13T06:55:06+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/06\/del-hc-partition-suit-rejected-under-or-7-r-11-cpc-for-want-of-cause-of-action-in-light-of-general-power-of-attorney-and-requisition-deed\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/06\/del-hc-partition-suit-rejected-under-or-7-r-11-cpc-for-want-of-cause-of-action-in-light-of-general-power-of-attorney-and-requisition-deed\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/06\/del-hc-partition-suit-rejected-under-or-7-r-11-cpc-for-want-of-cause-of-action-in-light-of-general-power-of-attorney-and-requisition-deed\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Del HC | Partition suit rejected under Or. 7 R. 11 CPC for want of cause of action in light of General Power of Attorney and Requisition Deed\"}]},{\"@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 | Partition suit rejected under Or. 7 R. 11 CPC for want of cause of action in light of General Power of Attorney and Requisition Deed | 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\/08\/06\/del-hc-partition-suit-rejected-under-or-7-r-11-cpc-for-want-of-cause-of-action-in-light-of-general-power-of-attorney-and-requisition-deed\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Del HC | Partition suit rejected under Or. 7 R. 11 CPC for want of cause of action in light of General Power of Attorney and Requisition Deed","og_description":"Delhi High Court:\u00a0Pratibha M. Singh, J. allowed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the defendant in the subject","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/06\/del-hc-partition-suit-rejected-under-or-7-r-11-cpc-for-want-of-cause-of-action-in-light-of-general-power-of-attorney-and-requisition-deed\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2019-08-06T04:00:35+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-08-13T06:55:06+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\/08\/06\/del-hc-partition-suit-rejected-under-or-7-r-11-cpc-for-want-of-cause-of-action-in-light-of-general-power-of-attorney-and-requisition-deed\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/06\/del-hc-partition-suit-rejected-under-or-7-r-11-cpc-for-want-of-cause-of-action-in-light-of-general-power-of-attorney-and-requisition-deed\/","name":"Del HC | Partition suit rejected under Or. 7 R. 11 CPC for want of cause of action in light of General Power of Attorney and Requisition Deed | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2019-08-06T04:00:35+00:00","dateModified":"2019-08-13T06:55:06+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/06\/del-hc-partition-suit-rejected-under-or-7-r-11-cpc-for-want-of-cause-of-action-in-light-of-general-power-of-attorney-and-requisition-deed\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/06\/del-hc-partition-suit-rejected-under-or-7-r-11-cpc-for-want-of-cause-of-action-in-light-of-general-power-of-attorney-and-requisition-deed\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/06\/del-hc-partition-suit-rejected-under-or-7-r-11-cpc-for-want-of-cause-of-action-in-light-of-general-power-of-attorney-and-requisition-deed\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Del HC | Partition suit rejected under Or. 7 R. 11 CPC for want of cause of action in light of General Power of Attorney and Requisition Deed"}]},{"@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":371913,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/07\/del-hc-order-vii-rule-11-partition-suit-cannot-be-rejected\/","url_meta":{"origin":217735,"position":0},"title":"Partition suit pleading acquisition from joint family funds cannot be rejected at threshold, must go to trial: Delhi High Court","author":"Ritu","date":"January 7, 2026","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe cause of action in a suit for partition is of a recurring nature and continues so long as the joint status subsists, crystallising only upon refusal of a demand for partition.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Partition suit cannot be rejected","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Partition-suit-cannot-be-rejected.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Partition-suit-cannot-be-rejected.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Partition-suit-cannot-be-rejected.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Partition-suit-cannot-be-rejected.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":308614,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/07\/orissa-hc-rejects-amendment-of-plaint-for-prayer-of-partition-in-27-years-old-dispute-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":217735,"position":1},"title":"\u2018Proposed changes will expand ambit of Suit\u2019; Orissa HC rejects amendment of plaint for incorporation of prayer for partition in 27-years-old dispute","author":"Editor","date":"December 7, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe suit was instituted in 1996 and was at the fag end of the trial. The Defendant\u2019s cross-examination was ongoing and if the proposed amendment is allowed, it will change the nature and character of the suit.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"orissa high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/orissa-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\/05\/orissa-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/orissa-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/orissa-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":310278,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/28\/calcutta-high-court-affirms-dismissal-of-order-7-rule-11-application-on-non-demonstration-of-grounds-of-rejection-scc-blog\/","url_meta":{"origin":217735,"position":2},"title":"\u2018Incidental or non-essential observations do not constitute res judicata\u2019; Calcutta High Court affirms dismissal of Order 7 Rule 11 application","author":"Ritu","date":"December 28, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Calcutta High Court noted that the mere dismissal of the first suit does not automatically render the second suit barred by res judicata.","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\/2023\/04\/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\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":206325,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/12\/06\/right-to-begin-under-order-18-rule-1-cpc-can-be-given-to-defendant-under-certain-circumstances\/","url_meta":{"origin":217735,"position":3},"title":"\u2018Right to begin\u2019 under Order 18 Rule 1 CPC can be given to defendant under certain circumstances","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"December 6, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Orissa High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of A.K. Rath, J., dismissed the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution which challenged the order by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Puri whereby the trial court allowed the application of the plaintiff under Order 18 Rule 1 CPC and directed\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":255314,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/08\/person-was-minor-at-the-time-of-execution-of-sale-deed-will-registration-of-sale-deed-be-invalid\/","url_meta":{"origin":217735,"position":4},"title":"Person was minor at the time of execution of sale deed, will registration of sale deed be invalid? Read detailed verdict on property dispute","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 8, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi: Naresh Kumar Laka, Additional District Judge, decided a suit with respect to partition and permanent injunction. Instant suit was filed for partition and other reliefs by claiming that the plaintiff was a joint owner of 1\/3rd share of the suit property and Defendants 1\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":339385,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/20\/supreme-court-discusses-order-ii-rule-2-cpc\/","url_meta":{"origin":217735,"position":5},"title":"Supreme Court breaks down Order II Rule 2 of CPC, discusses general principles underlying its operation","author":"Editor","date":"January 20, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe stage at which the first suit is, would not be a material consideration in deciding the applicability of the bar under Order II Rule 2. What needs to be looked into is whether the cause of action in both suits is one and the same in substance, and whether\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Order II Rule 2 CPC","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/Order-II-Rule-2-CPC.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/Order-II-Rule-2-CPC.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/Order-II-Rule-2-CPC.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/Order-II-Rule-2-CPC.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/217735","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=217735"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/217735\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=217735"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=217735"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=217735"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}