Delhi High Court - Orders
Sumitra Devi & Ors vs Rajinder Kaur Anand on 27 May, 2024
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC.REV. 344/2018
SUMITRA DEVI & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr Ashish Sareen, Adv.
versus
RAJINDER KAUR ANAND ..... Respondent
Through: Mr Rajat Aneja and Ms Garima
Saxena, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
ORDER
% 27.05.2024 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
1. It is informed by both sides that costs dated 02.05.2024 stands paid. Pass over till post lunch session requested by Shri Ashish Sareen, counsel for petitioners awaiting the arguing counsel Shri Rajesh Banati. Pass over request is strongly opposed by counsel for respondent taking me through last order. Learned counsel for respondent has also brought to my notice order dated 05.09.2019, when counsel for the petitioners had taken adjournment to take instructions of his client for time required to vacate.
2. However, since learned counsel for petitioners submits that the arguing counsel, Shri Rajesh Banati, had to take his wife to doctor, pass over request is allowed, especially because the counsel Shri Ashish Sareen affirms that Shri Banati, Advocate has not appeared in any other court in pre lunch session today.
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 28/05/2024 at 00:15:30
3. In the meanwhile, report be also obtained from the Registry as regards notice directed to be issued to the Notary Public in terms with last order, because even today, petitioner no.2 present in court submits that he cannot furnish exact address of the Notary Public. According to him, the notarization of the said document was got done by Shri Inder Mohan Singh, brother of the respondent though the document was produced on last date by counsel for petitioners only. It is strongly denied by counsel for respondent that the said document was got notarized by brother of the respondent and it is stated by him that Shri Inder Mohan Singh is not brother but brother-in- law of the respondent.
4. Recall the matter after lunch, as requested by learned counsel for petitioners.
GIRISH KATHPALIA, J MAY 27, 2024/ry Counsel for petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Banati, Advocate CM APPL. 29544/2018 (stay)
5. In this call in post-lunch session, report has been received from the Registry from which it appears that the Notary Public concerned, who had notarized the unsigned MoU, was appointed by the Ministry of Law & Justice of the Government of India, but despite service of communication dated 06.05.2024 and reminder dated 15.05.2024, no response came from that office.
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 28/05/2024 at 00:15:30
6. As mentioned above, today in pre-lunch session, the petitioners took a stand that they do not know complete address of the said Notary Public, as the document had been got notarized by some Inder Mohan Singh, brother of the present respondent (according to the present respondent, Shri Inder Mohan Singh is her brother-in-law). The Notary Public, therefore, goes untraced.
7. In view of these circumstances, coupled with the developments that took place on last date, learned counsel for petitioners was called upon to address as to why the interim stay on operation of the impugned eviction order be not vacated forthwith.
8. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that parties had actually compromised the disputes, though the MoU could not be signed by them. However, learned counsel for petitioners admitted having handed over the said unsigned but notarized MoU to this Court, stating falsely that parties had settled the disputes. As regards the efforts being done to shield the Notary Public who had notarized the unsigned MoU, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are not aware about address of the said Notary Public.
9. It is considered appropriate to record the extract of last order in this regard. The same is as follows:
"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 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 28/05/2024 at 00:15:31 him for 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"
10. As is evident from above extract, on the last date it is the petitioners who disclosed incomplete address of the Notary Public as Anand Parbat, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, but the complete address was not disclosed. But today, the petitioners have come up with a completely new version that it is brother (or brother-in-law) of the respondent who had got the unsigned document notarized. To this, learned counsel for petitioners now submits that on last date also he had stated that the document was got notarized by brother of the present respondent. But admittedly, there is no such averment recorded in last order and also admittedly, the document was produced by learned counsel for petitioners himself.
11. It is trite that stay on operation of an order impugned in appellate or revisional proceedings is a matter of discretion of the Court, in which equity bears a significant role. To begin with, a false statement is made in Court 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 28/05/2024 at 00:15:31 that parties have compromised the disputes. And when the other side denies any settlement, a compromise document titled Memorandum of Understanding, printed on stamp paper is produced by the petitioners. But on being pointed out that the same is unsigned, the petitioners inform incomplete address of the Notary Public and subsequently, create a completely new version that the document was got notarized by the other side, without any explanation as to how it came in the hands of the petitioners.
12. It appears that petitioners have not been coming forward truthfully before this Court. That being so, in my view petitioners are not entitled to any further indulgence of interim protection.
13. In view of above discussion, the stay application CM APPL. 29544/2018 is dismissed. Consequently, the respondent is at liberty to seek execution of the impugned eviction order in accordance with law.
14. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioners submits that on last date, it is not he, but the petitioners who had made the statement about compromise. However, the record reflects that it is the learned counsel for petitioners who stated about the compromise. It is clarified today by the learned counsel for petitioners that he made the statement on instructions of his clients.
CM APPL. 21351/2022 (user charges) & CM APPL. 44181/2022 (delay of 14 days in filing the reply of CM APPL.21351/2022)
15. Learned counsel for respondent submits that these applications have to be adjudicated in view of the fact that the petitioners enjoyed stay on operation of the impugned eviction order for substantial period of time.
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 28/05/2024 at 00:15:31 Since it is already 04:40 pm, list these applications for arguments on 26.09.2024.
GIRISH KATHPALIA, J MAY 27, 2024/rk 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 28/05/2024 at 00:15:31