Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14] In rebuttal, Shri Asudani, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the statement of Gyanendra Dubey, who is the service provider, and had executed the agreement, in which he has also stated that as per the map, Soni family (respondent no.1) was to get 20% of the proceeds, whereas, Palash Rajani was to get 80% of the proceeds. Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the roznamcha, wherein, only one letter has been recovered from the drawer of the deceased Naresh Soni, and during the investigation, Police has also found that the aforesaid suicide note on which the respondent has relied upon, was not in the handwriting of the deceased Naresh Soni. 15] Shri Amol Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 58, who are the plot holders has submitted that the matter may be referred to the arbitration, as the respondents have no objection. 16] Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 17] From the record, this Court finds that the dispute between the petitioner/defendant and respondent No.1/plaintiff has arisen out of a registered development agreement dated 16.07.2020, the execution of which is not denied by the plaintiff. However, their contention is that during the process of registration, the ratio in para 5 has been reversed, and according to the plaintiff, in the draft agreement, which was prepared NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:807 M.P. No.1033- 2023 for the perusal of the parties, the ratio was in favour of the plaintiff as 80:20, and the arbitration clause was also deleted, but to the utter surprise of the plaintiff, not only the aforesaid ratio was reversed in favour of the defendant, but the arbitration clause has also not been deleted, as agreed between the parties. This Court is of the considered opinion that the contention of the respondent No.1 cannot be accepted, as it is found that the documents on which the plaintiff is relying upon, is merely a photocopy of an agreement, it is neither registered, nor it is signed by any of the parties concerned. In such circumstances, it is difficult to override the evidentiary value of a registered document as compared to an unregistered and unsigned document which has no evidentiary value at all.