Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Mr. Vimal Patel, learned advocate with Mr. Devarshi Shah, learned advocate for respondent No.2- complainant submitted that the case against the petitioner is made out on the basis of highly disputed evidence and disputed facts, which require full- fledged trial. Mr. Vimal Patel submitted that the petitioner claiming himself to be a reputed advocate has misplayed with the complainant who is well aware of the legal proceedings and R/SCR.A/2424/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2021 damage to the legal rights of the respondent No.2. Mr. Patel submitted that the Vakalatnama and the Application Exh-34 under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC were not signed by the complainant. It was not duly affirmed and verified by respondent No.2, who was not aware of the proceedings and behind his back, by putting false signature of respondent No.2, the proceedings were conducted without his consent. Referring to the copy of pass-port, Mr. Patel submitted that respondent No.2 was on Europe tour for 44 days from 9.6.2011 to 22.7.2011 and the son of respondent No.2 Ronak Patel had been to U.K. Nottingham for studies, who graduated as Msc. in Engineering Management from Nottingham Trent University and was working there for a year and thus respondent No.2's son Ronak had no contact with the petitioner in the year 2011 and 2012 and it was only in the year 2013, Ronak Patel came in contact with the petitioner and respondent No.2 hired him a lawyer in Paras Petroleum Pump Land Matter and that is how the petitioner got the e-mail address of the son of respondent No.2. Mr. Patel submitted that the respondent No.2 had no knowledge of any Vakalatnama sent to his son through e-mail and the signature in question is fake. The E-mail sent to the son of the respondent No.2 is fabricated and it is alleged that such pre-dated emails has been generated by spoofing techniques.