Allahabad High Court
Chandrama Singh And Ors. vs Mirza Anis Ahmad on 9 August, 2010
Author: Pankaj Mithal
Bench: Pankaj Mithal
Court No. - 19 Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 95 of 1989 Petitioner :- Chandrama Singh And Ors. Respondent :- Mirza Anis Ahmad Petitioner Counsel :- Sankatha Rai,Akhilesh Tripathi,Ashutosh Srivastava,P.K. Singh,R.C.Singh,Sudhir Kumar Shukla Respondent Counsel :- R.K.Jain,J.N.Srivastava,J.N.Verma,M.D.Singh Shekhar,S.C.Srivastava Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
This second appeal was filed on behalf of three appellants namely; Chandrama Singh, Ramjas Singh Yadav and Ramker Singh. It was presented through Sri Sankatha Rai, Advocate on their behalf.
Admittedly, Ramker Singh, appellant no. 3 is no more.
Subsequently, Sri R.C. Singh is said to have been engaged by appellant nos. 1 and 2 Chandrama Singh and Ramjas Singh Yadav. Sri R.C. Singh on behalf of the above two appellants moved application for withdrawal of the appeal on the ground that the dispute has been resolved out side the Court. The aforesaid application was supported by the affidavits of both the appellants. Ramjas Singh Yadav appellant no. 2 on the said affidavit has put his thumb impression and had not signed it. The appeal on the aforesaid application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 27.10.2005.
After the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn appellant no. 2 Ramjas Singh Yadav through Sri S.K. Shukla, Advocate filed an application for recall of the order dated 27.10.2005 alleging that he had never engaged Sri R.C. Singh as his counsel and that he had not given or signed any affidavit which is purported to have been filed on his behalf in support of the withdrawal application.
The recall application was rejected vide order dated 8.12.2005.
Aggrieved by the above order, appellant no. 2 Ramjas Singh Yadav preferred civil appeal no. 3774 of 2007 before the Supreme Court which was allowed and the order 18.12.2005 rejecting the recall application was set aside and the High Court was directed to enquire into the matter though some Judicial Officer.
Pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court, the Hon'ble Chief Justice ordered for vigilance enquiry. The Vigilance Officer obtained the signatures and the thumb impression of the appellant no. 2 Ramjas Singh Yadav and recorded the statements of appellants no. 1 and 2 and the Advocate Sri Sudhir Kumar Shukla and Sri R.C. Singh as well as Sri P.K. Singh who had identified Ramjas Singh Yadav appellant no. 2. The statement of the sole respondent Mirza Anis Ahmad were also recorded. After obtaining the reports from the Director Forensic Science Laboratory with regard to thumb impression of the appellant no. 2 Ramjas Singh Yadav and considering the entire material on record, the Vigilance Officer submitted his report dated 3.9.2009. He concluded that the position is quite clear that along with civil Misc. Application no. 202058 of 2009, affidavit affirmed on 18th October 2005 alleged to have been deposed by Chandrama Singh and Ramjas Singh Yadav does not bear the thumb impression of Ramjas Singh Yadav and it could not be said that this affidavit was sworn by Sri Ramjas Singh Yadav. It is also clear that the vakalatnama of Sri R.C. Singh, Advocate is not signed by Ramjas Singh Yadav.
In view of the aforesaid report which is not disputed by any of the parties, the conclusion is inevitable that one of the interested parties had played fraud upon the Court by moving application for withdrawal of the appeal through Sri R.C. Singh, Advocate with the false thumb impression of appellant no. 2 Ramjas Singh Yadav on the affidavit.
The Court vide order dated 12.7.2010 had required the presence of all the parties fixing 9.8.2010. All the parties to the appeal are present. Today, appellant no. 1 Chandrama Singh and his counsel state that even appellant no. 1 had not engaged Sri R.C. Singh as the counsel and had not even moved any application supported by an affidavit for withdrawal of the appeal, the affidavit, if any, does not bear his signatures. This is a matter of further enquiry by the Vigilance Officer but before directing for such an enquiry, I consider it proper to first scrutinize the statement of appellant no. 1 Chandrama Singh which was recorded by the Vigilance Officer so as to ascertain the stand taken by him therein. The statements of the witnesses so recorded during vigilance enquiry are not traceable. The office is directed to place the entire record concerning the Vigilance Enquiry along with the statements of the persons recorded duly marked.
List on 16.8.2009 after lunch in Chambers.
The parties shall be present on the next date also.
Order Date :- 9.8.2010 SKS