Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The Counsel also denied the service of any such petition which had been filed on October 01, 2019 and further stated that the said filing needs to deemed as non-est in nature, as it lacked vakalatnama, affidavit, statement of truth and signatures on the petition.

22. Responding to the argument advanced by Mr. Batra that the filing done on October 01, 2019 was a proper filing and contained a vakalatnama, affidavit, statement of truth, etc. and that the defects notified for the first time on October 23, 2019 by the Registry were rectified initially on October 23, 2019 and on October 24, 2019, the Counsel stated that there was no basis for the said submission as service was not completed on the respondents.

26. The Counsel stated that the aforementioned sequence of events demonstrates that the petitioners first relied on the filing made by them on October 01, 2019 and then even after having made these arguments, did not disclose/provide the complete set of documents filed on October 01, 2019 together with the list of defects notified by the Registry. The Counsel submitted that in the absence of these documents, the filing as done on October 01, 2019 was in fact non-est and amounted to nothing more than a bunch of papers.

29. The Counsel submitted that the petitioners deliberately concealed such documents although being in possession of the same, making this a fit case for drawing adverse inference against the petitioners. In other words, it is their submission that if the petitioners had disclosed the requested documents it would have supported the case of the respondents that the filing was non-est and was nothing more than a 'bunch of papers'.

30. The Counsel also submitted that the Court should rely upon the defect sheet which would show that the filing was grossly inadequate and lacked vakalatnama, supporting affidavit, statement of truth, signatures on the petition etc. The very fact that the statement of truth and vakalatnama are dated October 19, 2019 or thereafter, shows that the present petition could not have been filed on October 01, 2019 and that such a filing was not a proper filing in the eye of law. Their pleas, in substance, are the following: -

37. The Counsel for the respondents stated (1) the petitioners have not placed on record, the documents / petition as filed by them on October 01, 2019. This is despite, them making a request to concerned counsel for obtaining the same and thereafter filing an application; (2) The petition filed on October 01, 2019 was not filed validly, i.e. filed without vakalatnama, affidavit, statement of truth etc., as the petition before this Court shows that these have been executed only on October 19, 2020 and October 22, 2020, so the filing on October 01, 2019 was in fact non-est; (3) the petition itself at various places carries the date as October 19, 2019; (4) even the defects pointed out by the Registry on October 23, 2019 was with regard to the lack of signatures by petitioners or advocate on the petition/application/power of attorney etc., absence of statement of truth, supporting affidavit, vakalatnama etc. rendering the filing non-est.