Bombay High Court
Radheshyam Jangad vs Shanti Pralhad Sakla Wd/O Late ... on 4 May, 2023
Bench: Madhav J. Jamdar
2023:BHC-AS:13685
1-wp-4002-2023.doc
Sonali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4002 OF 2023
Radheshyam Jangad ...Petitioner
Versus
Shanti Pralhad Sakla w/o. Late Pralhad Narayan Sakla
(Through her Constituted Attorney and Son)
Mr. Satish Sakla & Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4004 OF 2023
Nemichand Giridharilal Gupta ...Petitioner
Versus
Shanti Pralhad Sakla w/o. Late Pralhad Narayan Sakla
(Through her Constituted Attorney and Son)
Mr. Satish Sakla & Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4005 OF 2023
Suresh Babu Diwakar ...Petitioner
Versus
Shanti Pralhad Sakla w/o. Late Pralhad Narayan Sakla
(Through her Constituted Attorney and Son)
Mr. Satish Sakla & Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4006 OF 2023
Mukesh Surjaram Khowal ...Petitioner
Versus
Shanti Pralhad Sakla w/o. Late Pralhad Narayan Sakla
(Through her Constituted Attorney and Son)
Mr. Satish Sakla & Ors. ...Respondents
Mr. Mohit Jadhav a/w Ms. Megha Shigavan, Ms. Kajal Chourasia
and Mr. Shubham Shinde for the Petitioners.
Mr. Ashok Kumar Dubey a/w. Mr. Abhinav Dubey, Ms. Aarati
Kushwaha, i/b. SAVJ Law Solutions, for Respondent No.3.
1/37
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2023 15:23:42 :::
1-wp-4002-2023.doc
Sonali
Dr. Birendra Saraf, Advocate General (Present on earlier dates).
Mr. P.P. Kakade, Government Pleader and Mr. P.G. Sawant- AGP, for
Respondent No.6 - State.
Mr. Dharmesh Joshi i/b. T.D. Joshi and Associates for Respondent
No.7.
Mr. G. N. Salunke, i/b. Ms. Savita Yadav for Respondent No.8.
Mr. Girish Godbole, Senior Counsel - Amicus Curiae.
Mr. Sachin B. Bhansali, the Prothonotary & Senior Master a/w. Mrs.
C. J. Bhatt-Company Registrar/Testamentary Registrar- present.
Mr. Rajan Malkani, Advocate - present.
Mr. V. M. Parkar, Advocate - present.
Mr. Satish Pralhad Sakla - Respondent No.3 - present.
Ms. Manisha Pandurang More, Respondent No.7- present.
Mr. Sagar Shamrao Pawar, Respondent No.8- present.
CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED : 4th MAY 2023
P.C. :
1. In Writ Petition No.4002 of 2023 the challenge is to the
legality and validity of order dated 1 st August 2022 passed by
the learned Judge, Small Causes Court at Mumbai (Bandra
Branch) below Exhibit- 33 in R.A.E. & R. Suit No.374/528 of
2011. The said application was filed by Plaintiffs i.e. Respondent
Nos. 1 to 3 seeking leave for production of additional documents
1-wp-4002-2023.doc
Sonali
under Order XIII Rule 1, 4 and 7 and Order XVI Rule 6 and 7 of
C.P.C. By impugned order, the learned Trial Court allowed the
said application. Thus, production of documents were allowed
and the said suit was adjourned for hearing on admissibility of
documents. The order impugned in other Writ Petitions is also
similar.
2. These Writ Petitions were heard in the morning session
on 30th March 2023 and were rejected. As by the impugned
order, merely production of documents were allowed and
matter was kept for hearing on admissibility of documents it is
observed in order dated 30th March 2023 that there is no
prejudice caused to the Petitioners and therefore, interference
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not required.
Accordingly, the Writ Petitions were dismissed, however, by
said order it is clarified that all the contentions in respect of
admissibility of the documents produced by the Respondents
was kept open. Said order dismissing the Writ Petition was
passed on 30th March 2023 in the morning session. However, at
1.32 p.m., learned Prothonotary and Senior Master, High Court
(Original Side), Bombay received complaint dated 30th March
1-wp-4002-2023.doc
Sonali
2023 made by Mr. Vishwanbhar M. Parkar, Advocate having
address at 1/B, 403, Saamana Parivar CHS Limited, General
Arun Kumar Vaidya Marg, Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400 065.
The said complaint is set out hereinbelow:-
"Date : 30.03.2023
To,
Prothonotary & Sr. Master,
High Court, Original Side,
Mumbai.
Sir,
Ref ; High Court, Testamentary & Intestate
Jurisdiction Testamentary Petition Lodging
No.589 of 2018;
On 29th March, 2023 at 6.12 pm I received WhatsApp
message on my mobile from Mobile No.9819432558 wherein I
received an order of High Court allegedly passed in
Testamentary Petition (Lodging) No.589 of 2018. At that time, I
was meeting with my colleague advocate at her offce at
Santacruz. After reading the said order carefully, I noticed that,
the said order is bogus and fraudulent order. That, I had filed
vakalatnama in Testamentary Petition fled by Smt. Shanti
Sakla viz: Testamentary Petition No.593 of 2018 and hence, it
is my duty to bring to your office notice the said bogus and
fraudulent orders. I further request your authority to take
necessary action as permissible under the law.
Yours faithfully,
1-wp-4002-2023.doc
Sonali
(V.M.PARKAR)
Advocate"
(Emphasis added)
3. In view of said complaint, learned Prothonotary and
Senior Master, High Court (Original Side), Bombay placed
before this Court report dated 30 th March 2023. The said report
inter alia states as follows:-
"It is respectfully further submitted that alongwith
his said Complaint letter, the Advocate for
Petitioner has enclosed a photocopy of some alleged
true copy of some Oral Judgment in aforesaid
Testamentary Petition Lodging No.589 of 2018
purportedly passed by this Hon'ble Court with
Coram: R. D. Nalawade, J. The said alleged Order
does not bear any date. However, at foot of page 2, it
is mentioned "Signature not verifed; Digitally signed
by R. D. Nalawade (J.), Date : 2019.04.09, Time :
12.30.38". It is respectfully submitted that the
aforesaid Testamentary Petition No.593 of 2018 (i.e.
Testamentary Petition Lodging No.589 of 2018)
filed by said Shanti Pralhad Sakala, Petitioner
abovenamed, was dismissed under Rule 435 of the
High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980, as per
Notice dated 25th April, 2022 for non-prosecution.
It is further submitted that upon perusal of the
Minutes of Orders of aforesaid Petition, the
1-wp-4002-2023.doc
Sonali
aforesaid alleged Order/Judgment is not found. It is
respectfully further submitted that Mr. V. M.
Parkar, Advocate for Petitioner, has while handing
over the aforesaid Complaint informed to the
Prothonotary and Senior Master that four matters
of said Petitioner are listed today on board of Your
Lordship at Sr. Nos.908 to 911. The aforesaid
Complaint letter has been received around 1.32 p.m.
and the aforesaid matters came to be disposed of by
Your Lordship in the Morning Session. Under the
aforesaid circumstances, the said Complaint letter
is placed before Your Lordship for perusal and
appropriate further directions."
(Emphasis added)
4. The above report of learned Prothonotary and Senior
Master, High Court (Original Side), Bombay, clarifies that said
Testamentary Petition No.593 of 2018 (i.e. Testamentary
Petition (L) No.589 of 2018) (hereinafter referred to as the
"said Testamentory Petition") filed by Shanti Pralhad Sakla was
dismissed under Rule 435 under Chapter XXVI of the High
Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980 for non-prosecution and the
alleged order and judgment allegedly passed in said
Testamentary Petition has not been found in the record. In view
1-wp-4002-2023.doc
Sonali
of the said complaint of very serious nature and as fraudulent
order of this Court purportedly passed in said Testamentary
Petition is being used by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 i.e. the
original Plaintiffs, the order passed in the morning session on
30th March 2023 of dismissing the Writ Petitions was recalled
and all the Writ Petitions were directed to be restored to the file.
5. It is also noticed that the said purported order is
produced before the Small Causes Court along with application
bearing Exhibit-33 in R.A.E. & R. Suit No.374/528 of 2011. In
the Writ Petition compilation, from pages 21 to 24 at Exhibit-B,
copy of said application being Exhibit-33 of the Plaintiffs
seeking leave of the Court to produce additional documents
under Order XIII Rule 3, 4 and 7 and Order XVI Rule 6 and 7 of
the C.P.C. was annexed. The said application bears verification
of Respondent No.3-Satish Pralhad Sakla. The said application
is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-
"IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT BOMBAY
[BANDRA BRANCH]
R. A. E. & R. SUIT NO. 374/528 OF 2011
PRALHAD NARAYAN SAKLA & Ors.
...(Since Deceased)
1-wp-4002-2023.doc
Sonali
...Plaintiffs
Versus
Radheshyam Jangad
...Respondent
APPLICATION OF THE PLAINTIFFS SEEKING
LEAVE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT TO PRODUCE
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS UNDER ORDER 13-
RULE 3-4-7 AND ORDER 16, RULE 6-7 OF THE
C.P.C.
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR
I Mr. Satish Sakla Age 38 years, the Plaintiff No.3
for self and as Constituted Attorney of Plaintiffs
No.1, 2, 4 and 5 above named. residing at Plot
No.26, C.T.S. No.585/1 to 14 Ram Mandir Road,
Kherwadi, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 do
hereby state on Solemn affirmation as under:-
1) I state that I have already filed my Affidavit of
Evidence and Compilation of Documents. I state that
since the Present Suit is part of the group of Suits
only one original Set of Documents was filed and
copies thereof provided to the Defendants.
2) I state that the Defendants has denied my title of
the Suit Premises and after my Late father Mr.
Pralhad Narayan Sakla's death (Original Plaintiff) I
had to hunt for the documents and take steps to
bring myself and other Plaintiffs on record as the
heir and landlord of the Suit Premises.
1-wp-4002-2023.doc
Sonali
3) I state that my mother Mrs. Shanti Pralhad Sakla
has filed a Testamentary Petition No.589 of 2018 In
the High Court of Judicature at Bombay
Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction to bring
her and the children of Late Pralhad Sakla (Present
Plaintiffs) on record.
The matter came up for hearing on 9th April 2019
Before his Lordship Justice Shri R. D. Nalawade who
passed an Oral Judgement in the matter.
4) I state that I am now in Possession and Power of
the Said Oral Judgement dated 09/04/2019 of the
Bombay High Court, which is absolutely relevant
and admissible to the Subject matter of the Present
Suit.
I hereby tender the Original Certified copy of the
Oral Judgement dated 09/04/2019 passed by the
Hon'ble High Court Bombay by His Lordship Justice
Shri R. D. Nalawade along with a copy thereof and
pray that the same be taken on record exhibited
and admitted in the evidence and marked as
Exhibit.
5) I state that there after the State of Maharashtra
through Collector of Bombay brought the Plaintiffs
on record in the Property Card and uploaded the
same on its Site as Public Document.
I hereby tender notarized copies of the Property
Card in respect of the Suit Premises down loaded on
1-wp-4002-2023.doc
Sonali
5th June 2022 and pray that the same be taken on
record, exhibited and admitted in evidence and
marked as Exhibit.
6) I state that as both the aforesaid documents are
available to the Public on the Site of High Court
Bombay and the Site of Government of Maharashtra
through Collector of Bombay respectively are
deemed to be Public Documents which do not
require any Proof and can be admitted at any stage
under the Provisions of Order 13, Rule 3, 4, 7 and
Order 16, Rule - 6, 7, 15 and 21 of the Civil
Procedure Code and hence humbly pray that the
same be admitted in evidence and exhibited.
7) I state that it is pertinent to note that since I am
in Possession of only one single copy of the original
Oral Judgement of the Bombay High Court dated
09/04/2019, I pray that the same be taken on
"Record-in-Common" for all the 13 Suits wherein
the Plaintiff is Common, the Suit Premises are also
on the same Plot of Land and hence exhibited and
admitted in evidence and marked as Exhibits.
Dated this 20 Day of June 2022.
VERIFICATION
I Satish Pralhad Sakla for myself and as the
constituted attorney of my mother Smt. Shanti
Pralhad Sakla widow of Late Pralhad Narayan Sakla
and my brothers Prakash Pralhad Sakla, Mukesh
1-wp-4002-2023.doc
Sonali
Pralhad Sakla, Girish Pralhad Sakla being the sons
of Late Pralhad Narayan Sakla the Plaintiff above
named do hereby affirmed and state on solemn
affirmation and say that what is stated in the
paragraphs hereinabove is true to my own
knowledge and belief and I believe the same to be
true.
Solemnly affirmed at Mumbai
Dated this ......day of June 2022
Advocate for the Plaintiffs Satish Pralhad Sakla
Plaintiff No.3.
For self & constituted attorney
of Plaintiff No.1, 2, 4 & 5."
(Emphasis added)
6. It is significant to note that in the affidavit, it has been
represented by Mr. Satish Pralhad Sakla on behalf of the
Plaintiffs i.e. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 that mother Mrs. Shanti
Pralhad Sakla has filed Testamentary Petition No.598 of 2018
in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Testamentary and
Intestate Jurisdiction. It is stated that said Testamentary
Petition came up for hearing on 9th April 2019 before his
Lordship Justice R. D. Nalawade who passed an oral judgment
in the matter. It is further stated by said Mr. Satish Pralhad
1-wp-4002-2023.doc
Sonali
Sakla that he is in possession of only one copy of the original
oral judgment dated 9th April 2019 of the Bombay High Court. It
is further stated in the said application that, the State of
Maharashtra through Collector of Bombay brought the names
of Plaintiffs on record in the Property Card and uploaded the
same on its site as public document. Copies of the said Property
Cards are also produced along with the said application. It is
further stated that both the aforesaid documents are available
to the public on the site of High Court and site of Government of
Maharashtra, through Collector of Bombay. Therefore, these
are the public documents which do not require any proof and
can be admitted at any stage under the provisions of Order XIII,
Rule 3, 4, 7 and Order XVI, Rule 6, 7, 15 and 21 of the C.P.C. It is
further mentioned that only one original judgment of the
Bombay High Court dated 9th April 2019 is in possession of said
Mr. Satish Pralhad Sakla and therefore, request is made to take
on record oral judgment of Bombay High Court dated 9 th April
2019 in all 13 suits. Therefore, it is clear that it is the
contention of Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 that the said
Testamentary Petition No.589 of 2018 has been disposed of by
1-wp-4002-2023.doc
Sonali
order dated 9th April 2019 of Hon'ble Lordship Justice R. D.
Nalawade. The said purported order of High Court purported to
have been passed by Justice R. D. Nalawade is annexed to the
said application (Page 25 to 26 of Writ Petition No.4002 of
2023). Scanned copy of said order is reproduced hereinbelow
for ready reference:-
1-wp-4002-2023.doc
Sonali
1-wp-4002-2023.doc
Sonali
7. It is significant to note that said purported order
purported to have been passed by Hon'ble Justice R. D.
Nalawade of the Bombay High Court is purported to have been
On the first page of the said order, there is watermark of High
Court of Judicature at Bombay. The said copy is true copy of
purported order purported to have been certified by K. K.
Trivedi, Company Registrar, High Court (Original Side),
Bombay. It is further significant to note that the said purported
order is purported to have been digitally signed by Justice R. D.
Nalawade on 9th April 2019 at 12:30:38. As set out in the said
application, the State Government has also mutated the
Property Card. The said Property Cards are also annexed to the
said application and they are annexed from pages 27 to 39 of
the Writ Petition No.4002 of 2023. One such Property Card at
page 27 is scanned and reproduced hereinbelow for reference: -
1-wp-4002-2023.doc
Sonali
8. As set out hereinabove, learned Prothonotary and Senior
Master, High Court (Original Side), Bombay received the
complaint made by Advocate V. M. Parkar on 30 th March 2023
stating that said order is bogus and fraudulent and that the
same has never been passed in the said Testamentary Petition.
The learned Prothonotary and Senior Master, High Court
(Original Side), Bombay after verifying the record of said
Testamentary Petition, in the report submitted to this Court
stated that after verification of the record, it is found that no
such order is available in the record of said Testamentary
Petition and in fact, the said Testamentary Petition has been
dismissed under Rule 435 under Chapter XXVI of the High
Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980 as per the notice dated 25 th
April 2022 for non-prosecution.
9. In view of the serious nature of the complaint, notice is
issued to Advocate Ashok Kumar Dubey who has appeared for
said Respondent No.3 i.e. Satish Pralhad Sakla and also
Advocate Rajan Malkani who has filed the said application
before the Small Causes Court (Bandra Branch), Mumbai on
behalf of the Plaintiffs. By said order dated 30 th March 2023,
1-wp-4002-2023.doc
Sonali
further proceedings in all the 4 suits were directed to be stayed
and the learned Registrar, Small Causes Court, Mumbai was
directed to immediately seal all the record and proceedings of
all the aforesaid suits and submit the same to the learned
Prothonotary and Senior Master, High Court (Original Side),
Bombay by next date i.e. 31st March 2023. Respondent Nos. 1 to
5 were also restrained from producing said purported order
dated 9th April 2019 purported to have been passed by R. D.
Nalawade, J. in said Testamentary Petition or copy thereof
before any Court or authority. In view of serious nature of the
matter, Mr. Girish Godbole, learned Senior Counsel has been
appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court.
10. Learned Prothonotary and Senior Master, High Court
(Original Side), Bombay has also placed before this Court sitting
list of High Court of Bombay Appellate Side/ Original Side w.e.f.
11th March 2019 as well as sitting list of Nagpur Bench and
Aurangabad Bench and High Court of Bombay at Goa w.e.f. 11 th
March 2019. As per the said sitting list, Hon'ble Justice T. V.
Nalawade (mentioned in said fraudulent order as R. D.
Nalawade, J.) was sitting with Hon'ble Justice Mangesh Patil in
1-wp-4002-2023.doc
Sonali
Division Bench w.e.f. 11th March 2019 at Aurangabad Bench of
the Bombay High Court. The learned Prothonotary and Senior
Master High Court (Original Side), Bombay who is present in
Court, on instructions, stated that till May Vacation i.e. 4 th May
2019, the said sitting was continued. Relevant portion of sitting
list of Aurangabad Bench of High Court w.e.f. 11 th March 2019 is
as follows:-
AURANGABAD BENCH
SITTING LIST W.E.F. 11th MARCH 2019
(Partial Modification wef 12-3-2019)
Sr. Present sitting Assignment
No.
3. The Hon'ble Shri Justice For admission, hearing and
T. V. NALAWADE order matters therein:-
AND (A) All Criminal Appeals.
The Hon'ble Shri Justice (B) Applications under
MANGESH S. PATIL Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and
All Writ Petitions for
quashing of FIR, C.R.,
Charge sheet, complaints
except those assigned to
Court No.1.
(C) All other Criminal Writ
Petitions.
(D) All other Criminal Work.
11. On 30th March 2023, the matter was adjourned to 10 th
April 2023 (First on Board). On 10th April 2023, Advocate
1-wp-4002-2023.doc
Sonali
Ashok Kumar Dubey as well as Advocate Rajan Malkani were
personally present pursuant to notice issued to them.
Respondent No.3-Satish Pralhad Sakla was also personally
present and he is the Constituted Attorney of Respondent Nos.
1, 2, 4 and 5. He filed affidavit dated 10th April 2023. In view of
the contentions raised in the said affidavit of Mr. Satish Pralhad
Sakla, notice was directed to be issued to Advocate V. M. Parkar
and Mr. Sagar Pawar. On 10th April 2023, Respondent No.3-
Satish Pralhad Sakla submitted written undertaking to this
Court that he would remain present on each and every date of
hearing of the petition and said undertaking was accepted by
this Court. The matter was thereafter kept on 17th April 2023.
12. On 17th April 2023, Mr. V. M. Parkar, learned Advocate as
well as Mr. Sagar Pawar were present. In the affidavit dated 10 th
April 2023 of Mr. Satish Pralhad Sakla, reference is made to the
total 12 suits including the 4 suits which are the subject matter
of all the aforesaid Writ Petitions. Therefore, by said order
dated 17th April 2023 further proceedings of all the above
balance 8 suits pending before the Small Causes Court (Bandra
Branch), Mumbai were directed to be stayed till further orders
1-wp-4002-2023.doc
Sonali
and record of all the 8 suits were directed to be sealed and
learned Registrar Small Causes Court was directed to submit
the said record to learned Prothonotary and Senior Master,
High Court (Original Side), Bombay by next day i.e. by 18th
April 2023.
1-wp-4002-2023.doc
Sonali
13. It is shocking to note that apart from the fraudulent order
purported to have been passed by Justice R. D. Nalawade in
said Testamentary Petition, fraudulent challans for payment
towards Bombay High Court Testamentary Jurisdiction of Rs.
13,00,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.55,000/- were produced
along with the said affidavit of said Mr. Satish Pralhad Sakla.
Scanned copies of said fraudulent challans are as follows:-
1-wp-4002-2023.doc
Sonali
1-wp-4002-2023.doc
Sonali
1-wp-4002-2023.doc
Sonali
Apart from that, along with the said affidavit of Mr. Satish Pralhad Sakla dated 10
14. th April 2023,
order purported to have been passed by Sonali K. Dighe date 7
th February 2023 is produced.
The said order is also scanned and reproduced hereinbelow for ready
reference:-
15. Along with affidavit of Manisha More at page 229,
1-wp-4002-2023.doc
Sonali
another order dated 17th November 2022 purported to have
been passed by Sonali K. Dighe is produced. The scanned copy
of said order is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-
1-wp-4002-2023.doc
Sonali
16. Both the purported orders dated 7th February 2023 and
17th November 2022 purported to have been passed by Sonali
K. Dighe, officer of this Court are not found in the record of said
Testamentary Petition No.598 of 2018. The said Testamentary
Petition was never placed before officer Sonali K. Dighe and she
never passed aforesaid orders as per the record of said
Testamentary Petition.
17. By earlier orders all the parties were directed to file
affidavits and all the parties i.e. Respondent No.3-Satish
Pralhad Sakla, Respondent No.7-Manisha More and
Respondent No.8-Sagar Pawar have filed
affidavits/reply/rejoinder/additional affidavit, it is significant to
note that the transcript of mobile conversation between
Respondent No.7- Manisha More and Respondent No.8-Sagar
Pawar is produced along with affidavit dated 25 th April 2023 of
Ms. Manisha More. The said conversation indicates that order
on which the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have relied is not the order
passed by this Court. In fact, to the said affidavit, transcript of
the conversation between Respondent No.8-Sagar Pawar as well
1-wp-4002-2023.doc
Sonali
as Respondent No.3-Satish Pralhad Sakla is also annexed. The
same shows that order purported to have been passed by
Justice Nalawade is not the order passed by this Court.
18. Mr. Godbole, learned Senior Counsel who is appointed as
Amicus Curiae submitted that purported order passed by this
Court of Justice Nalawade as well as purported orders passed
by Ms. Sonali K. Dighe, officer of this Court are forged and
fabricated orders and the same is admitted almost by all the
parties and therefore, criminal action is required to be taken.
He also submitted that as the same affects administration of
justice, suo moto issuance of notice contemplated under Section
15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is also required to be
directed. He pointed out Section 340 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 and submitted that as far as some offences are
concerned, bar under Section 195 (1) (b) will not be attracted
therefore, FIR can be directed to be lodged. He also submitted
that as far as certain offences are concerned, in view of the
provisions of Section 195 1(b), (ii) and (iii) of the Cr.P.C., it
would be necessary to proceed under Section 340 of the said
Code.
1-wp-4002-2023.doc
Sonali
19. In view of serious nature of the complaint, by order dated
17th April 2023, this Court has requested learned Advocate
General to assist this Court. Learned Advocate General
submitted that action for contempt can be initiated. He
submitted that Registrar General, High Court Bombay be
directed to file FIR as well as action be taken in accordance with
Section 195 read with Section 340 of the Cr. P.C. He also
submitted that if role of Advocate is noticed, then Bar Council of
Maharashtra and Goa can be directed to initiate appropriate
action.
20. Mr. Jadhav, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners
submitted that not only the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have
produced the said fraudulent order before the Small Causes
Court, Mumbai (Bandra Branch) but also on the basis of said
order, changed the Property Card. He also pointed out the
fraudulent challans.
21. Mr. Salunke, learned counsel appearing for Respondent
No.8 submitted that the Cell Phone conversations between the
Respondent No.8 and the Respondent No.7 and the Respondent
No.8 and the Respondent No.3 are with respect to some other
1-wp-4002-2023.doc
Sonali
order and not with respect to the order purported to have been
passed by Justice Nalawade in said Testamentary Petition.
However, he admitted that the said order purported to have
been passed by Justice Nalawade as well as orders passed by
officer, Sonali K. Dighe are not the genuine orders. He pointed
out the challans and tried to point out some contradictions in
the affidavit of Respondent No.7-Manisha More and
Respondent No.3-Satish Pralhad Sakla. However, he submitted
that in view of the facts and circumstances of this case,
investigation is required.
22. Mr. Ashok Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No.3 submitted that although Respondent No.3 was
earlier of the opinion that the purported order dated 9 th April
2019 of Nalawade, J. is genuine, however, after perusal of the
affidavits now Respondent No.3 is also of the opinion that order
is forged and fabricated.
23. The factual position on record as reflected from the
original record of Testamentary Petition and as per the record
of these Writ Petitions clearly show that said purported order
dated 9th April 2019 is forged and fabricated order. Even orders
1-wp-4002-2023.doc
Sonali
of officer Ms. Sonali K. Dighe of this Court are also forged and
fabricated.
24. It has also come on record that the above referred E-
Challans are also forged and fabricated. It is admitted position
that the Court fee of Rs.16,55,000/- is not required to be paid in
Testamentary Jurisdiction. Advocate Vishwanbhar Mahadev
Parkar in affidavit dated 24th April 2023 has placed on record
the said aspect.
25. Mr. Girish Godbole, learned Senior Counsel appointed as
Amicus Curiae relied on the decision of the Supreme Court
reported in the matter of Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. vs.
Meenakshi Marwah & Anr. 1 He relied on paragraphs 10, 33
and 34 of the said decision. The said paragraphs read as under:-
"10. The scheme of the statutory provision may now
be examined. Broadly, Section 195 CrPC deals with
three distinct categories of offences which have
been described in clauses (a), (b)(i) and (b)(ii) and
they relate to (1) contempt of lawful authority of
public servants, (2) offences against public justice,
and (3) offences relating to documents given in
evidence. Clause (a) deals with offences punishable
under Sections 172 to 188 IPC which occur in
1 (2005) 4 SCC 370
1-wp-4002-2023.doc
Sonali
Chapter X of the IPC and the heading of the Chapter
is --"Of Contempts of the Lawful Authority of Public
Servants". These are offences which directly affect
the functioning of or discharge of lawful duties of a
public servant. Clause (b)(i) refers to offences in
Chapter XI of IPC which is headed as--"Of False
Evidence And Offences Against Public Justice". The
offences mentioned in this clause clearly relate to
giving or fabricating false evidence or making a
false declaration in any judicial proceeding or before
a Court of justice or before a public servant who is
bound or authorized by law to receive such
declaration, and also to some other offences which
have a direct co-relation with the proceedings in a
Court of justice (Sections 205 and 211 IPC). This
being the scheme of two provisions or clauses of
Section 195, viz., that the offence should be such
which has direct bearing or affects the functioning
or discharge of lawful duties of a public servant or
has a direct correlation with the proceedings in a
court of justice, the expression "when such offence
is alleged to have been committed in respect of a
document produced or given in evidence in a
proceeding in a court" occurring in clause (b)(ii)
should normally mean commission of such an
offence after the document has actually been
produced or given in evidence in the Court. The
1-wp-4002-2023.doc
Sonali
situation or contingency where an offence as
enumerated in this clause has already been
committed earlier and later on the document is
produced or is given in evidence in Court, does not
appear to be in tune with clauses (a)(i) and (b)(i)
and consequently with the scheme of Section 195
Cr.P.C. This indicates that clause (b)(ii)
contemplates a situation where the offences
enumerated therein are committed with respect to a
document subsequent to its production or giving in
evidence in a proceeding in any court."
"33. In view of the discussion made above, we are of
the opinion that Sachida Nand Singh has been
correctly decided and the view taken therein is the
correct view. Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC would be
attracted only when the offences enumerated in the
said provision have been committed with respect to
a document after it has been produced or given in
evidence in a proceeding in any Court i.e. during the
time when the document was in custodia legis."
"34. In the present case, the Will has been produced
in the court subsequently. It is nobody's case that
any offence as enumerated in Section 195(b)(ii) was
committed in respect to the said will after it had
been produced or filed in the Court of District Judge.
1-wp-4002-2023.doc
Sonali
Therefore, the bar created by Section 195(1)(b)(ii)
CrPC would not come into play and there is no
embargo on the power of the Court to take
cognizance of the offence on the basis of the
complaint filed by the respondents. The view taken
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the
High Court is perfectly correct and calls for no
interference."
26. He submitted that as far as certain offences are
concerned, FIR can be filed and as far as certain other offences
are concerned, action under Section 195 read with Section 340
of Cr. P.C. is required to be initiated.
27. The Supreme Court in the decision of New Era Fabrics
Limited vs. Bhanumati Keshrichand Jhaveri2 discussed the
scope of Section 340 read with Section 195 (1) (b) of Cr. P.C. It
has been observed that the scope of inquiry as contemplated
under Section 340 read with Section 195 (1) (b) of Cr. P.C. is
very limited. The scope of said inquiry is just to assess whether
prima facie case is made out and that there is a reasonable
likelihood that the offence specified in Section 340 read with
Section 195 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C. has been committed and it is
2 (2020) 4 SCC 41
1-wp-4002-2023.doc
Sonali
expedient in the interest of justice to take action.
28. The factual position on record as set out hereinabove
clearly shows that purported order of this Court purported to
have been passed by Justice R. D. Nalawade dated 9 th April
2019 is fraudulent order. It is also very clear that the purported
orders dated 7th February 2023 and 17th November 2022
purported to have been passed by Sonali K. Dighe, officer of this
Court are also forged and fabricated. Apart from that, E-
Challans which purports that huge amounts of Rs.16,55,000/-
are deposited in the treasury of the State Government
purported for the purpose of said Testamentary Petition are
also fraudulent. Record of the Testamentary Petition shows
that Court fee of only Rs.75,000/- has been deposited by E-
Challan on 16th February 2018.
29. It is significant to note that none of the Respondents i.e.
Respondent Nos.1 to 5 (original Plaintiffs) including
Respondent No.3-Satish Pralhad Sakla, Respondent No.7-
Manisha Pandurang More and Respondent No.8- Sagar
Shamrao Patil have contended that the above orders and E-
challans or at least some of these documents are genuine
1-wp-4002-2023.doc
Sonali
documents.
30. As held by the Supreme Court in New Era Fabrics Limited
(supra) inquiry contemplated under Section 340 read with
Section 195 of Cr. P.C. is just to assess whether prima facie case
is made out and that there is reasonable likelihood that the
offence specified in Section 195 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C. has been
committed and it is expedient in the interest of justice to take
action. This is a case where fraudulent order purported to have
been passed by this Court is prepared and it has been
represented to all the concerned that the same is the order
passed by this Court.
31. The learned Advocate General and learned Amicus Curiae
both are right in contending that this also amounts to
interference in the administration of justice and therefore,
action for committing contempt of this Court is also required to
be initiated. The said aspect will be considered on further dates.
32. For the above reasons, learned Prothonotary and Senior
Master, Original Side, High Court Bombay or any officer of this
Court of the rank of Additional Registrar/Additional
Prothonotary and Senior Master authorized by the
1-wp-4002-2023.doc
Sonali
Prothonotary and Senior Master, High Court (Original Side),
Bombay to file complaint with the jurisdictional Magistrate as I
am prima facie satisfied that offence of forgery, fabricating false
evidence and making false statement in a declaration which is
receivable as evidence, offences under the Information
Technology Act etc. are made out against Respondent No.3-
Satish Pralhad Sakla, Respondent No.7-Manisha Pandurang
More and Respondent No.8-Sagar Shamrao Pawar and some
unknown persons.
33. Respondent No.3-Satish Pralhad Sakla, Respondent No.7-
Manisha Pandurang More and Respondent No.8-Sagar
Shamrao Pawar to furnish surety/cash security before the
learned Registrar (Judicial-I), Appellate Side, High Court,
Bombay to the tune of Rs.15,000/- each for the appearance
before such Magistrate as contemplated under Section 340 (1)
(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as and when
summoned.
34. The Respondent No.6-State of Maharashtra and
Prothonotary and Senior Master, (Original Side), High Court
Bombay to submit report on or before 12 th June 2023 to this
1-wp-4002-2023.doc
Sonali
Court.
35. It is clarified that as far as the direction regarding suo
moto issuance of contempt as well as other actions will be
considered on the next date.
36. It is clarified that undertaking given by Respondent No.3-
Satish Pralhad Sakla, Respondent No.7-Manisha Pandurang
More and Respondent No.8-Sagar Shamrao Pawar that they
will appear before this Court on each and every date shall
continue till further orders.
37. Stand over to 12th June 2023 (First on Board).
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
