Delhi High Court - Orders
Sumitra Devi & Ors vs Rajinder Kaur Anand on 2 May, 2024
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC.REV. 344/2018
SUMITRA DEVI & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rajesh Banati, Mr. Ashish Saran
and Mr. Adil, Advs.
versus
RAJINDER KAUR ANAND ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja and Ms Garima
Saxena, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
ORDER
% 02.05.2024 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] CM APPL. 44181/2022 (delay in filing the reply of CM AAPL. 21351/2022), CM APPL. 21351/2022 (use and occupation charges) & CM APPL. 29544/2018 (stay)
1. At the very outset, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that parties have compromised the disputes. This was strongly denied by learned counsel for respondent as well as his client present in court. In response, learned counsel for petitioners produced before the court a memorandum of understanding on stamp paper duly notarized on 01.05.2024. But shockingly that document does not bear signatures of any party or witness. It is a blank memorandum of understanding which has been notarized by some Mr Raj Kumar Advocate, the Notary Public Registration No. 6536. Before proceeding further against the Notary Public for having notarized an unsigned document, it is considered appropriate to summon him for This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/05/2024 at 23:43:02 explanation. The petitioners present in court have disclosed address of the Notary Public as Anand Parbat, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road. But specific address is not disclosed. As such copy of this order be sent to the concerned branch dealing with appointment and records of Notaries. Copy of this order be sent to the said Notary Public granting him opportunity to show cause as to why action be not taken against him for notarizing the blank document.
2. The said unsigned document of memorandum of understanding produced before me by learned counsel for petitioner is taken on record. It be scanned and thereafter be kept in a sealed envelope.
3. For addressing arguments on the application for use and occupation charges, adjournment requested by learned counsel for petitioners as he was expecting the matter to get settled today. Adjournment request is strongly opposed by learned counsel for respondent taking me through previous record. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that even if subject to cost, matter may be adjourned today.
4. Under these circumstances, subject to the petitioners paying cost of Rs. 25,000/- to respondent within one week, adjournment request is allowed.
5. Relist on 27.05.2024. On the next date, both sides shall also address as to whether on account of placing on record such memorandum of understanding, the stay on operation of the impugned eviction order can be vacated.
GIRISH KATHPALIA, J MAY 2, 2024/as Click here to check corrigendum, if any This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/05/2024 at 23:43:02