Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: unsigned document in Sumitra Devi & Ors vs Rajinder Kaur Anand on 27 May, 2024Matching Fragments
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.
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.
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.