{"id":221606,"date":"2019-10-31T09:00:31","date_gmt":"2019-10-31T03:30:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=221606"},"modified":"2019-11-02T12:22:58","modified_gmt":"2019-11-02T06:52:58","slug":"chh-hc-affidavit-filed-under-or-18-r-4-cpc-is-not-evidence-within-s-3-of-evidence-act-unless-deponent-is-subjected-to-cross-examination","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/31\/chh-hc-affidavit-filed-under-or-18-r-4-cpc-is-not-evidence-within-s-3-of-evidence-act-unless-deponent-is-subjected-to-cross-examination\/","title":{"rendered":"Chh HC | Affidavit filed under Or. 18 R. 4 CPC is not “evidence” within S. 3 of Evidence Act unless deponent is subjected to cross-examination"},"content":{"rendered":"

Chhattisgarh High Court:\u00a0<\/strong>Sanjay K. Agrawal, J., allowed a second appeal against the order of the trial court as well as the First Appellate Court whereby the suit brought by the plaintiffs (respondents herein) for declaration of title, permanent injunction, partition and possession of the suit property was decreed.<\/p>\n

It is pertinent to note that during the pendency of the said suit, affidavit-evidence under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC\u00a0(recording of evidence)\u00a0<\/em>was filed by the plaintiffs. On two subsequent dates when the matter was posted, the plaintiff — Kunti Bai — was partly cross-examined. However, after that, she could not appear before the trial court though the matter was fixed for evidence from time to time. Ultimately, her opportunity to lead evidence was closed and thereafter, the suit was decreed in favour\u00a0of the plaintiffs.<\/p>\n

The question for consideration of the High Court was whether the affidavit-evidence\u00a0of the Kunti Bai, which was not subjected to cross-examination, could be said to be “evidence” within the meaning of Section 3\u00a0(interpretation clause)\u00a0<\/em>of the Evidence Act.<\/p>\n

The Court was of the opinion that a careful perusal of Section 3 would show that the affidavit is not included in the definition of “evidence”, and can be used only if the Court permits it for sufficient reasons.\u00a0An affidavit can be termed to be an “evidence” within the ambit of Section 3 only in those cases where the same is filed at the instance or under the direction of the Court or law specifically permits for proof of anything by affidavit.\u00a0<\/strong>Thus, the filing of an affidavit or one’s own statement, in one’s own favour, cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court.<\/p>\n

Reliance was placed on\u00a0Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of<\/em> Maharashtra, (2013) 4 SCC 465<\/a>, wherein the Supreme Court had held that affidavit can be relied upon when the deponent is available for cross-examination in terms of Order 18 Rule 4 CPC. The High Court held that:\u00a0“Thus, it is now well settled that affidavit is not evidence within the meaning of Section 3 of the Evidence Act unless an opportunity to effectively cross-examine to the person(s) examined is given to another side as provided in Order 18 Rule 4(2) of the CPC.”<\/strong><\/p>\n

In the instant case, since the defendants did not get a proper opportunity to cross-examine Kunti Bai, the court held that the affidavit filed by her under Order 18 Rule 4 remained an affidavit and did not turn into evidence. In such view of the matter, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the trial court to give an opportunity to the defendants to cross-examine Kunti Bai and other prosecution witnesses. [Premlal v. Kunti Bai,\u00a02019 SCC OnLine Chh 107<\/b><\/a>, decided on 11-09-2019]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Chhattisgarh High Court:\u00a0Sanjay K. Agrawal, J., allowed a second appeal against the order of the trial court as well as the First <\/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":[9121,38102,31853,14201,38101],"class_list":["post-221606","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-cross-examination","tag-order-18-rule-4-cpc","tag-partition","tag-permanent-injunction","tag-section-3-of-evidence-act"],"yoast_head":"\nChh HC | Affidavit filed under Or. 18 R. 4 CPC is not "evidence" within S. 3 of Evidence Act unless deponent is subjected to cross-examination | 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\/10\/31\/chh-hc-affidavit-filed-under-or-18-r-4-cpc-is-not-evidence-within-s-3-of-evidence-act-unless-deponent-is-subjected-to-cross-examination\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chh HC | Affidavit filed under Or. 18 R. 4 CPC is not "evidence" within S. 3 of Evidence Act unless deponent is subjected to cross-examination\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Chhattisgarh High Court:\u00a0Sanjay K. Agrawal, J., allowed a second appeal against the order of the trial court as well as the First\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/31\/chh-hc-affidavit-filed-under-or-18-r-4-cpc-is-not-evidence-within-s-3-of-evidence-act-unless-deponent-is-subjected-to-cross-examination\/\" \/>\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=\"2019-10-31T03:30:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-11-02T06:52:58+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/chattisgarh_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=\"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\/10\/31\/chh-hc-affidavit-filed-under-or-18-r-4-cpc-is-not-evidence-within-s-3-of-evidence-act-unless-deponent-is-subjected-to-cross-examination\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/31\/chh-hc-affidavit-filed-under-or-18-r-4-cpc-is-not-evidence-within-s-3-of-evidence-act-unless-deponent-is-subjected-to-cross-examination\/\",\"name\":\"Chh HC | Affidavit filed under Or. 18 R. 4 CPC is not \\\"evidence\\\" within S. 3 of Evidence Act unless deponent is subjected to cross-examination | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2019-10-31T03:30:31+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-11-02T06:52:58+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/31\/chh-hc-affidavit-filed-under-or-18-r-4-cpc-is-not-evidence-within-s-3-of-evidence-act-unless-deponent-is-subjected-to-cross-examination\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/31\/chh-hc-affidavit-filed-under-or-18-r-4-cpc-is-not-evidence-within-s-3-of-evidence-act-unless-deponent-is-subjected-to-cross-examination\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/31\/chh-hc-affidavit-filed-under-or-18-r-4-cpc-is-not-evidence-within-s-3-of-evidence-act-unless-deponent-is-subjected-to-cross-examination\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chh HC | Affidavit filed under Or. 18 R. 4 CPC is not “evidence” within S. 3 of Evidence Act unless deponent is subjected to cross-examination\"}]},{\"@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":"Chh HC | Affidavit filed under Or. 18 R. 4 CPC is not \"evidence\" within S. 3 of Evidence Act unless deponent is subjected to cross-examination | 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\/10\/31\/chh-hc-affidavit-filed-under-or-18-r-4-cpc-is-not-evidence-within-s-3-of-evidence-act-unless-deponent-is-subjected-to-cross-examination\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chh HC | Affidavit filed under Or. 18 R. 4 CPC is not \"evidence\" within S. 3 of Evidence Act unless deponent is subjected to cross-examination","og_description":"Chhattisgarh High Court:\u00a0Sanjay K. Agrawal, J., allowed a second appeal against the order of the trial court as well as the First","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/31\/chh-hc-affidavit-filed-under-or-18-r-4-cpc-is-not-evidence-within-s-3-of-evidence-act-unless-deponent-is-subjected-to-cross-examination\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2019-10-31T03:30:31+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-11-02T06:52:58+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/chattisgarh_high_court.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\/10\/31\/chh-hc-affidavit-filed-under-or-18-r-4-cpc-is-not-evidence-within-s-3-of-evidence-act-unless-deponent-is-subjected-to-cross-examination\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/31\/chh-hc-affidavit-filed-under-or-18-r-4-cpc-is-not-evidence-within-s-3-of-evidence-act-unless-deponent-is-subjected-to-cross-examination\/","name":"Chh HC | Affidavit filed under Or. 18 R. 4 CPC is not \"evidence\" within S. 3 of Evidence Act unless deponent is subjected to cross-examination | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2019-10-31T03:30:31+00:00","dateModified":"2019-11-02T06:52:58+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/31\/chh-hc-affidavit-filed-under-or-18-r-4-cpc-is-not-evidence-within-s-3-of-evidence-act-unless-deponent-is-subjected-to-cross-examination\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/31\/chh-hc-affidavit-filed-under-or-18-r-4-cpc-is-not-evidence-within-s-3-of-evidence-act-unless-deponent-is-subjected-to-cross-examination\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/31\/chh-hc-affidavit-filed-under-or-18-r-4-cpc-is-not-evidence-within-s-3-of-evidence-act-unless-deponent-is-subjected-to-cross-examination\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chh HC | Affidavit filed under Or. 18 R. 4 CPC is not “evidence” within S. 3 of Evidence Act unless deponent is subjected to cross-examination"}]},{"@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":146551,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/08\/01\/high-court-is-empowered-to-dismiss-the-first-appeal-at-preliminary-stage-of-hearing-if-it-lacks-merit\/","url_meta":{"origin":221606,"position":0},"title":"High Court is empowered to dismiss the first appeal at preliminary stage of hearing if it lacks merit","author":"Saba","date":"August 1, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Karnataka High Court: In an appeal under Section 96 CPC, directed against the judgment and decree passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru, in O.S. No. 10\/2014, dismissing the suit for partition and separate possession; and cancellation of documents, a two-Judge Bench comprising of Jayant Patel\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":246394,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/02\/partition-suit\/","url_meta":{"origin":221606,"position":1},"title":"Madras HC | Daughters filed partition suit while disowning their registered release deed. As per S. 92 of Evidence Act, burden to adduce evidence sufficient to exclude written evidence will be on the daughters? Read on","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"April 2, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Madras High Court: G. Jayachandran, J., the instant suit was filed with regard to the relief of partition and permanent injunction from alienating or encumbering the suit property. Instant suit was filed for partition by daughters of Late Palanisamy Gounder against his sons was dismissed by the trial court while\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":316648,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/11\/calcutta-high-court-grants-permission-to-tender-affidavit-in-chief-under-order-18-rule-17-cpc-scc-times\/","url_meta":{"origin":221606,"position":2},"title":"Calcutta High Court grants permission to tender Affidavit-in-Chief due to \u2018necessity\u2019 and for \u2018ends of justice\u2019","author":"Ritu","date":"March 11, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Calcutta High Court directed that both the suits are to be heard together after such evidence on recall is completed and granted the respondent the right to cross-examine the petitioner.","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":[]},{"id":225066,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/02\/03\/del-hc-permission-to-amend-written-statement-after-plaintiffs-evidence-denied-in-view-of-proviso-to-order-6-rule-17-cpc\/","url_meta":{"origin":221606,"position":3},"title":"Del HC | Permission to amend written statement after plaintiff’s evidence denied in view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 3, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court:\u00a0Pratibha M. Singh, J., dismissed a petition filed against the order of the trial court whereby it had rejected the petitioner-defendant's application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC (amendment of pleadings)\u00a0seeking amendment in their written statement. The instant suit which was filed for specific performance in 2005 had\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":172664,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/12\/01\/exists-substantial-question-law-miscellaneous-appeal-can-entertained\/","url_meta":{"origin":221606,"position":4},"title":"If there exists substantial question of law, miscellaneous appeal can be entertained","author":"Saba","date":"December 1, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur: The Court recently heard an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure is directed against an order of 2010 in a suit filed by plaintiffs for declaration, possession and permanent injunction which was dismissed by the trial court in 2009\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\/12\/MP-HC-JABALPUR.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/12\/MP-HC-JABALPUR.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/12\/MP-HC-JABALPUR.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/12\/MP-HC-JABALPUR.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/12\/MP-HC-JABALPUR.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":329489,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/28\/o-vi-r-17-does-not-limit-application-for-amendment-pleadings-at-any-stage-of-proceedings-sikkim-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":221606,"position":5},"title":"\u2018O. VI R. 17 does not limit amendment of pleadings at any stage of proceedings, if it is necessary for determining the real questions in controversy\u2019: Sikkim HC","author":"Editor","date":"August 28, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The amendments were imperative for the proper and effective adjudication of the dispute; refusal to allow the amendment application would have caused injustice or resulted in multiple litigations; and the amendments did not constitutionally or fundamentally change the nature of the case.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Sikkim High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Sikkim-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\/04\/Sikkim-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Sikkim-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Sikkim-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\/221606","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=221606"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/221606\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=221606"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=221606"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=221606"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}